Skip to main content

Full text of "A Critical And Exegetical Commentary On The Epistle To The Galatians"

See other formats

i aSO.7 161 
I Burton 

!■ Galatians 

Acc. Ko. 


tll 9 
•s liik, a 

Keep Your Card k TIik Pocket 



Uniees labftW ott^rwlit, .Ixjokf m»f Im »l«lfwdl 
fef ,f(»r w®®ks. Borrows^ ftfidfag bookt irwr feirl, ^ 
,tos»d or muttlaW «r« to rtport $mm of 

'l»ary othtrwiee th» lait Iwrowtr will li htW 
for all top«rf«dtoM diiwowpid, 
oa^ Wdir is for ill d»wft 


;; , Pfefialtf for o^-di^ books 20 % ^ litu om$ 
HOtifilM. ' 

, , oa'r<fo a«i dmim ^ li^ 

PoUic Ubraiy 

Imu City, Ms. 

KANSAS CK Y, MO f'Oni 10 t inRAftY 

llili III 111! 

D ODDI 02flD732 fl 











Miorrsmo* m mm trsTAMi vT iNtrapuFTATitiN w tbk 
umvr.fcSiTV <»f cmjcaoo 



CrtPYIKORT, 10<O, iV 

PubtbM Novmtwf, IW 






W HEN in 1806 I bcpjan work upon the Epistle to the 
Galatians with clcfmite reference to the preparation 
of this Commentary, it was with a clear conviction 
that if I was to make any appreciable €ontril)ution to the 
iinrierstanding of the ejnstle, it wouhl he by confining myself 
to a few of the st^veral lines of study which an interpreter might 
profK^ely and profitalily undertake, T decided not to attempt 
an exhaustive study of the history of the interpretation of the 
epistle, or of the rabhinic writings and methcKl of exegesis. 
Convinced that, <lespite all that had been done in the study of 
the vfaahulary of the New Testament, much remained still to 
be* done, and strongly inclined to ex|>ect that such study would 
aid materially in the recovery of the primary elements of the 
thought of the a|mstle Paul, persuaded als<.) that such lexico- 
graphical work woulrl prepare the way for a clearer fierception 
ctf the course* of thought of tin* epistle, I determined, while not 
wliolly neglcfilng cUher lines of study, in give my chief atten- 
lion, first, to li fresh historical study of the vocabulary of the 
truer, and thru to an c'ndeavour t«i trace its ctiurse of thought 
with exact nrss iind to state it with clearness. 

When the study of the religions of the Roman empire, com- 
iiifinty known :m the mystery religions, came into promtnencei I 
gave mime sttiily to them, with the result that I Imranria con- 
xdticeil itial the roiitrlbulbn which a thorough invest Igitliaii of 
tlteifi would make to the itiierpretiition of this lipistk, would 
not fmitify the |it'iwl|ioiteitient of the |.itililiratioii of this work 
for tjie |»rioil of years which such investigation would recplfe. 

Mraiitirrir, a growing mmm of the cto« rrlatiwifihip liel,w«m 
tlie eificfkiircs of the early Cltristkti ctiurrh, as the» are clb- 
dmmti til the lelter, and through which C^hrifitkiiily of 

fiiir f*wii flay i-i pa^.siiig, {wwl greatly iitcreiu«4 riiy wii» of the 
fiimritiml value of the letter t<^ the church of and 

goiltii m ’itrotig diHifc to make this clear to aiy readers. 




Whether I have been justified in thus emphasising these 
three things, meanings of words, course of thought, relation of 
the problems discussed by the apostle to those of our own clay, 
others must judge. The choice at any rate was deliberately 
made and has been persistently followed. 

Of the lexicographical studies which were made in pursuance 
of this plan, one, which consumed many months tmd was ex- 
tended over years, proved in character and bulk unsiiitccl to tie 
included in tliis volume, and was published se|>arately under 
the title, Spirit, Sozd and Flesh: The Usage af llmma, 

'Siidp^ in Greek Writings afid Translated Works from the Kariiest 
Period to xSo A, D.; aftd of their Equivalents . . . in ike iiehrm^ 
Old TestamenL Chicago, X9x8, The other stiiciiei of fids 
character the publishers have graciously consemted to include iti 
this volume, tlie longer ones in an ap|>efulix at the end the 
volume, the shorter ones scattered through if. 

In the quarter of a century in which I have made this Cofii» 
mentary tlie chief centre of my work as a student of the New 
Testament, I have called to my assistance in the cnilerfiiui of 
material and to a certain extent in the study i»f it, a g«wH:|iy 
number of those who have been studying in my rliiss#*s4, cliielly 
Fellows of the University of Chicago. To alt such I wMi 
express my appreciation of their services, Ihit I desire 
cialiy to mention Professor Arthur Wakefield Staten, FhJI,, 
the Young Men*s Christian Association C^ollegr in 
who for a period of nearly five years worked with tut* Iti aliwwit 
daily fellowship, and to whom I am ileeply indebted im his 
patient and skilful assistance, and lleiijaiiiisi 

Robinson, Ph.D., of the Chicago Tlieokigical Seinlaary, wlt«% 
has generously read the proofs of the tiook, and naatle m# »m»y 
valuable suggestions. The list of others, authors wla-rw bof>i» 
I have used, and c«>ll€agiJies whofp I have con^uitecl, k far i<» 
Io«g to be printed here. ^ 

fttly X, 







IL WiiKEK Week the CUt.ATiAN c;!HtmciiES? . * . . . «! 

A. The AUernative Opiniom xxi 

The History of Opinion * xjdv 

C, Pmii*n Urn* of the 'Ferm TaXorfa xxv 

D. Did Fiuil Found Ohim*h«T^ in Northern Gilatia? . xidx 

I. PanI’i IHnefis in Ctalatia xxlx 

i, The Kvkknff of Art si f6« Attd xxt 

Some Miiwr Ctoanidoratbm Derived from PauFi 


IIL The TtME ano Pw^rR or Wamnej illv 

IV* Oi'rAsiioM ANO PititHmE or the Lettei lill 

V, Tiir 0oE?4ri«iNs-i at Ivil 

VF V$mtnmimdnA ahu kv 

VIL AMAwm Of titt LEttEE kili 

VI I L Tttr. TwMt * l»i¥ 

I.X* Iiaxli 


APrKNiJiX 3% 

tmmmm' • 

1. W,mmm Wmm, Smmm* aw Awm^iti j »3 

if. CitiEE Wftitw Am ... SJ« 

Ilf. iiifjrAi, IksiAffEi, U$m m €iAU,nAm% Dwtwii© m 

Tiii tmmBmAm ^ 14® 


It is a«iimed that references to the books of the Bible and the O. T. 
ApcKxyplm, and to the classical and Jewish-Greek authors will be self- 
explanatory. I'he notation is that of the standard editions. In the refer- 
fexiic« to AristtUie the figures first following the author’s name refer to the 
Paris edition t»f his works, those in parenthesis to page# column, and line 
of the Edititi Ilt»ru?«lca (Berlin). In the case of Josephus the figures pre- 
the fiarenthesis refer to the books and sections of the edition 
of B, Niese, 7 vok., Berlin, those in parenthesis to the chapter and 

sections indicated in Whbton’s English translation. In the case of Philo 
the figures fiefiirti the I'larenthfrsis tienote the sections of the edition of 
Cohn and Wendland, 6 \’ok., Berlin, th<»e in parenthesis the 

tiertlonii of tins erlition of Richter, to which also the notation of Yonge’s 
Kfigtitli trandatkm correspond. Eor explanation of the ahbrevktlont 
rmpltiyed In the text critical notes and not found in this list the reiwier h 
referred to titii on the Text, pp. Ixxiv and to the works on Textual 

C!fitlckni there tinted. References to authwirs, laith ancient and mwlern, 
lo lit! easily Intrrpreiial by tefertuax to the Bihllography are not 
inriiwlrfi in Ihhi Ikd. The titlm of works iiifr«|umtly referred to are in 
grtirrai tiwt imludrfl in the following Hit but are printed fully enough for 
ifiewlitaalhiii whrn thr wtirks are mentioned. 

4/1’, Tke dm^fkdn 

Aftihr^t Aifilir«Hla«ier. Ca, 40$ 
A. ». Het Ltll.* p, 

dM¥, ^ m iMf Btm. Revketl. 
Umifkm ^^layntlard ¥Ak 
Mew York* 1^1. 


A¥ Th iidf $HI40, Aiilhiirkai 
%Vf'd'Ofi of 1611, 

•ilH*** iJfIvff, awl 



Briig. Bcngel See BlWIofmphy* 

p, kxriii. 

BCIU, **» Ihkm^m am 

dm ^i$kkm Mmmm m 
Beriim : 

4m ITE* Swift, t%i. 
EfW'iili, C. «• 

limmm eilldit 

h^mtm Bftccite, leflln* 


Bl'tl, ^ Hitts, F., Gnmmaiik dm 

fici. tkittiaiiffi, tS#. 

Atiia#«. I»emirit mm Allicft 
Smiitifri If 




’EM! * Burton, Ernest De Witt, 
SyiUax of the Moods and 
Tenses in New Testament 
Greek, Third edition. 
Chicago, 1898. 

ESSF, Burton, Ernest De Witt, 
Spirit^ JSoulj and Flesh. 
Chicago, 1918. 

Butt. « Buttmann, A,, A Grammar 
of the New Testament Greek. 
E. T. by J. H. Thayer. 
Andover, 1873. 

Bous. » Bousset, Wilhelm. See Bib- 
liography, p. kKxvi. 

Bous. Rd. d. Jud, *» Bousset, W., 
Rdigion des Judentums im 
muUstanientlkhen ZcWdkr. 
ZweUeAufi. Berlin, iqoO, 

BW . « The BMkal World. 

BZ. » Bihlische ZeitschrifL 

Cal w Calov. See Bibliography, 
p, taxiii. 

Calv. » Calvin. See Bibliography, 
p, toxiii, and S, and II., 
p. dil 

Cf. w Conf^f mmpare. 

aUP . « Charte,R.H.4#wy#lfti 
ard Psendepi^apM of ih 
Old Tmtammi. a vols. 0%- 
lord, 1913. 

Chryi* « J»nna Chrywitomuii. 
1 407. See Ltft, p. aa8. 

Cwmar * Cremer, H., BlblkekdhtO'^ 
l&iisckei WdrkrMek its 
^^sUmentlkkm Gf&eUM. 
2dbnte vlll% dwic^«ai‘« 
Wt«tc Attflap hmmw^^ 
voa Jnllua 

CJyr* ^ QprII of f 444* 

Cyf^ » Cyril of Jewitteft. f 

DalW/. » Dalman, The Wm^ds of 
Jesus. Edinburgh^ tgoi. 
Dam. *8 JoannaDamascenui. 

756. See S. and H., p. r.; 


DCS. *« Dictionary of CkrisHm 

rapky^ Littraitm^ Sm:ts^ and 
Doctrines, E<ii ted by W m . 
Smith and Henry Waer. 
4 vok. I.ond«m 1877-47. 
De.BS.« Ueiismann, BiMf Sindks, 

de W. «a de Welle, M. L. See Bib' 
liografjhy, p. Ixxxiv. 
Dib.Gud, Dibelius, Dk Gtiskr* 

welt im iUmthm des Amliii. 

Did. M %w WItixa 

X«v. Varkmsi-eflilioir^. 

Ell. - Kllleott, r. J, See 

raphy, p. Iixilv. 

Enc^. Bik F,m%rhprdi4 BiMka. 

by T. R. (1iey«w 
and J. S, Hkife> 4 voK 

li|dph* E|){ph 4 idi». f 4^* 


Eraini. Rrawmii. Srr lliyii^ra* 

pby, |i. hmlil 

ii, tintiii 

E. T, 

Eulhal ■*''" IbillialitM. 410- See 1*1 fit 
|i* .*40, and mm* 

Frit ^ E Se# 

lls^rapliy, p. Iii-wt. 

CIW* »• Clliwl^vr, i»il I*.* 
#/ AmM i*mk 
ff0mf ^ 

t Mfw Vi^l, 


GMT « Gildersleeve, Basil L*, Syn-^ 
tax af the Moods and Tenses 
of the Greek Verk Revised 
and enlarged, ^ Boston, 


Grimm « Grimm, C, L. W., Ijixlcon 
GmiehLaimum in Libros 
Nm TesiamenU. { Baserl on 
the Ckms Novi Ttstamnti 
PMkkimdC. GAVilke.) 
Kditlo sotnmda, emendata 
et aut'ta. lanfMig, 187^. 
Grot- ^ Grotim. Hugo. See BibH” 
c^raphy, p. IxxxiiL 

1 1/) A Bkiimary of the. Bihkn K<i- 

iled by Jamw Hastings. 
% volfi, Edinlnirgh ami 
New York, i%8'fi)05, 

' llkr. « El whim flieronymm (Je- 
rome). 1 Lift., 
I p. jji, iiml BGB. 

( llllg* « Ililgenfeltl, Adolf. See iih’' 
liogtaphy, p. Ixiitiv. 

. InlmL Iiilroilwriirm, 

Irrii, w lwii«ia. f i«^>. See !H*lk 

Flif Jm»nd of BiNkd 

|ril |rlE W, 11 . 4 Gmmm$fofth 
I kmimtif. EllihedG 

thm, ihiml, i| 8 i. 
i/fl* • Ssktk^'k 0r prM^.ikniiiekfi 

|i«l„ M#ri. liiitiii Miflyf. C*. 


1,4 Jf. Eiiid, 4 #^r¥* 

Mm 1 

^ f iWn^, Ipt. 


Kiihner-Gerth = Knlmer, Raphael, 
A tufUkrlkhe Grammaiik der 
p'iechmhen S prache, D ri tte 
Auflage in neuer Bearbeit- 
img, besorgt von Bernhard 
Gerth. 2 vols. Leipzig, 
iB^8, iw- 

L. 8£ S. » Liddell, IL G.. and Scott, 

R., Greek Kn^lish Lexkm, 
Seventh edition revised. 
New York, iBHs. 

Ln, « l^achmann, C., Nmnm Tesia- 
mntum Grace d iMim., 
(Ed. major) % vok Ber- 
lin, 184 a, 1850. 

!dft. LightfiHg, J. B. See Bibli- 
ografihy, p, kxxv. 

Luth, " Luther, M, See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. texiii, and S- 
and IL, p. dlL 

Lxx The Oki Tfstamnt in Greek 
tmwdmi k) the SeptmiM^ 
Quotidlom are from the 
edition of II. B. Swete. 
3 veil. C!ambrid||e, 1IB7- 
04 - 

M, awl M. Vm, Mciulmii, J. li, 

and Miftlgan, (L, Fowl#" 
key of ike Grmk Mm Tmk* 

Mcbn. Mftiidoii* S« KB. 
MGMm.mMmMm, I lf„ A 
Gmmmm of Mm 
(kmk Voi I 
mtim. Etifibtifili, ipi* 

Mey. « Me^yer, If. A, W. Sm ilb* 
Hography, p. Ixiilf. 

^ Moiall, Ja#., 

k iJkr 4 imee #/ Worn 

Mi«f ¥«rl, if 1 1, 



ms,, mss, = manuscript, manu- 

Oecum, =» Oecumenius. Tenth cen- 
tury. See Ltft., p. 234; 
S. and H,, p, c. 

OIs, Olshausen, H. See Bibliog- 
raphy, p, Ixxxiv. 

Ox, =* Origenes. fssa. See Ltft„p. 
227 » DCB. 

Pap. Amh « Th$ Amhersi PapyrL 
2 vols. Edited by B. P. 
Grenfell and A, S, Hunt, 
London 1900- 1. 

Pap. Gd- Cairo » Grmk Papyri from 
the Cairo M mmm* Edited 
by E, J. Goodspeed, Chi- 
cago, 190a. 

Pap. Ear. * Papyri from Karanis. 
Edited by E. J. Goodspeed, 
in Unmrsiiy of Ckkaio 
Studies in Cksskd PkUol* 
ogy. Chicago, 1900, 

Pap. Land. - Grmk Papyri in tk 
BfUhh Mmmm. Vok. I, 
n, edited by F.G, Kenyon; 
vd. Ill, by F. G, Kenyon 
and H, L Bell; voL IV, by 
H. I. Bell X893- 


Pap. Oasyr, » Tk Ox^kymkm 

pyn. VokFVI,X-XIII, 

Patr, Ap. « Apostolic Fathcri, 

Pelag. » Felagius. Ca. 410. See 
Lift., p. 333; S. and H., 
p. d; DCB. 

PollnXf Onom. * Pollux, Jidhw.Cbw- 
masiimn^ various Cflltioiifi 

PRJi «« ReakEncyrkpiMm fMr 

ksimUseke Ikdogk und 
Kirrk. Brltte Aiiflagf, 
her&useegelx»n von A, 
Hauck, tlio0-ios3. 

Preus<*h. » Preasciten, Erwin, 

sidndigrs - Grin ki-%^ k • 
DfMsrks I 

3 fi de.n Srkifim dm Mrmn 
Trsiamrnis and dm dhngm 
urrkruUkkm iJirralur. 
Oii*a»en, roio, 

PTkR. ^ Prmmkm Tkkdogkd Rt^ 

g, e, guod fMr, wlikh ire* 

Had. Hadernwhrr, E. AVwlei?##- 
mmUkk Gmmmdik. T i * 

Hc^aiiby, p. Inatvi, Aki 
Intftitl, p, ariv. 

Hob. «» Robertson, Arrlillfiiy T.# 
Gmmmw 0/ $k Grmk Mfw 

Hbck. RfiiArrE Lrti|-»i4d 

tnd A. S. Hunt; vols, VII" 
DCby A, S, Hunt l^nclon 

lirl p, 


H. and II. » ^mUf. W«i.. 

A, r.4 Cmlhd 

m ik. Mpk^ $0 §k 
idinbyrt'li iml 



Schm. «» Schmiedel, P, W. 

Schr, M SchiXtcr^GesckkMedesJiidi- 
schen V dikes im Zdialter 
Jesu ChrlstL Vierte Auf- 
lage, 1901-9. 

Sd. » Soden, Hermann Freiherr 
von, Dk Schrijkn des 
Nemn Testaments. Gdt- 
tingen* I902‘«“i3. Handaus- 
gabe (Griukkckes Nems 
Testament), 1913, 

Semi » Semler. See Bibliography, 
p. Ixmii, 

Sief. « Sieffert, F. See Bibliogra- 
phy, p. Ixxxv. 

SLQIV'. » Skten, Arthur Wakefield, 
Quditatm Nmns in the 
Pmdine Epistks* Chicago, 

Smith, m « WUlkm Smithk Dk- 
timmry af ike BiUe. Re- 
vised and edited by IL B. 
Hackett and hkrt Abbot. 
Bmton. 1867. 

SNT. ^ Dk Sckriftm des Ntmn 
Tesiammds, herausgegelKm 
von J. Wete. Zweite Auf- 
i^e, Gdttingm, 1907- 8. 

TkSiM.KrU» TMdiisek Siudim 

ufd Kdtikm, 

» Tkeliendorf, Cimstaiitin, 
Mmmm Tmimmtnm Gnm* 
Ikiilk mmm rrit maj. 

T«l * T«riiiiilaji. f m» 


Th, m Htycr, Hwry. d 

(kmk Fsilmk ijrxkm i»f $k 

Mm* New ¥ork» 

liitl. Irv. 

Tiiffl. » f m, 4$$. 

l 4 lt.» p 4 1 ^; DCB. 

Thphyl « Theophylactus. Ca. 1077. 

TR, «» Textus Receptus, the Greek 
text of the New Testament 
as commonly accepted from 
1516 till the modem critical 

Tr. « Tregelles, Greek New Testa- 
ment. London, 1857-79. 

u. s. ^ ut supra, as above. 

Vg. * Vulgate, text of the Latin 

Victorin. « C. Marius Victorinus. 
Ca. 360 A. 0. See Lift, 
p. 231; DCB. 

W. » Winer, G. B., Grammatik des 
nmdestamenilkkn Sjk&ck* 
Mims* Various editions 
and translations. 

WM. «« Eng, translation of the sixth 
eclition of the preceding 
(tiky) by W. F. Moulton. 
Ihird editbn revised. IM* 
inburgh, 1H82. 

WSchm. Winer, <l B., Gramma* 
tik, etc. , K. #. Achte Awfli^e 
mil lM‘arl>dtet von P. 
SchmIftiiL Then t Gat- 
tlngt*n, 1894* 

Welii. 9w Weks&cker, C., Dm 

Mrlw Zeitalkr. Ewelle 
Attft. Frtlburi, I. B. i%3. 
Dm Mem 

»ttl V 0 tt €. WelMicItf. 

Wetft. *» Wetiteln. See ilWfc^ra* 
phy, p. IxiiilL 

Wil. « Wealroti, It l*% «m! ttort, 
F. J. A,, Tk Mm r«to* 
mem m Ike urifimil CfVrrl, 
Ijiiiflia, 1 I , VoL I , TtJi t ; 
vol 11, InlfiMliiclto »»ii 



Wies. Wiesel^r, Karl. See Bibli- 
ography, p. Ixxxv. 

Ws. =» Weiss, Bernhard, See Bib- 
liography, p. Ixxxviii, 

ZhTh*^ Zdischrift fUr kisiorische 

ZmW. ZtUuMft far ik mfuimM-- 

ZwTL « Zmkckrifi /Mr wisimu'hifi- 
Ikfm TkfMhgie. 

ZkWkLn " ZeUsi'Mrtfi jMr MrcMkIm 
Wlnmschafl und kkcMkMs 




Greek authors use the terms KeXro/, K^Xrat, and VaXdrm^ 
Latin authors the similar terms Celtse, Galatae, and Galli, with- 
out clear discrimination.*^ In Polybius and Pausanias KeXre^ 
and I^'aXdrai are used synonymously, as in Greek writers gen- 
erally K^Xrai. and FaXdrai are.f Thus Polybius though com- 
monly using the name KeXro^f (see 3. 40, 41, 60, 67-74; cf. 3. 59) 
of the people whom he descriljes in 3. 37 as occupying the coun- 
try from Narlm to the Pyrenees, yet occasionally calls them 
raXdrai (3. 40; c/, 3. 3), and their country TaXar^'a (3. 59), 
In 3. 05, he uses the adjective raXaT4#«:ck\ Similarly Pau- 

sanias to**** uses K^Xro/and raXdroi Interchangeably of the 
Gauls who invaded Greece. Diodorus Siculus, 5. 32*, however, 
distiiigukhes lietwceii the raXdrui of the north and the 
K^Xrtti of the 

CIn the qimtkm whether the names KeXro/, K^Xroi and 
Fm\dfm$ were etyinok^^kally variant forms of the mme name 
or of origin, srhcilars have l^een divided, Niese, for 

©miiiplt, Menlifylng ihein,§ C!onti;en,ll Tam, II and ap^mntly 
laoit olhtr mialcrii phiolo^ls repirdifig them as of divei^ 
.D^'Arboii db Jutminvllle**^ apparently mgmd% the words 

♦ IMl, #»s JC»' f. «•! 1 - 1#* tt*. K4mmi Sl»ki*4. i*. 

fmMfmt t»> *; Wwtfh. t. if. Ci»s»f # i», i*. 0»litti-5 Cfc. M., ¥1 j»i 

Am- If*. t’lpMr M. 0^ If OmA srt E«iliit> ir^ti» 

i n^.Sle, j. j#» 
«»■ i* feff CM*- 


iTiiim* dm^m* iimmmK i*i. t m, it. 

t mi ”0*11* 4« Bmdf Itoi l» niiAfw m in*# «vt« 

i^m .0 tmn, hH iU4 uhm irnm with Hkm m II4» iiwliit, li 

l^t# m%. ^m0ww9, %h0 tii«f 

I An li-iilir' i« iwfs. 

f%# Sm»> Md»». p $ ^*1 f>| *’#. t^i.. 

** " t to* k* m Mmw t,** i liifSl. p. *#« 




as etymologically distinct, but the people as ethnographkally 

Related to this linguistic question, but not identical with it, 
is that of the nature of the tie uniting the various tribta which 
were grouped together under the terms or I aXarai, or 

both. Was the basis of this grouping racial, the trilM!Ji being 
of ultimately common origin; or linguistic, triljes of jwrhaps 
different origin having come to speak related languages: nr 
tural, different races sharing in a common dvilissUion; or eco- 
nomic and military, the several tribes jMirticipating in a com- 
mon migratory movement?* Related to this in turn is tlm 
question, whence and when Celtic or Gallic i>co|i!rH came 
into western Europe. All these questions [lertaiii to a {icrio«l 
long previous to that with which we are cstncerned, amt lie 
outside the scope of an introduction to I’aur.s Epistle to the 

Of more immediate interest, however, are the easfwarrl move- 
ments of the GauLs, which UhI to the ultimate s»-ttlentef)t of a 
portion of the race in Asia Minor anrl the (•.t.ibli'.hmemt t»f an 
eastern Gaul in which, or in an e.xfensi«m of which l»*aiing il'i 
name, Paul wa.s in process of time to preach the gimjiel amt 
found churches. The stages of tlte seem l«» have licni 

as follows: 

I. Under a chieftain whose name or title was Prrnnus the 
Gauls invaded Italy in ». c. 390 and captured Kf«ne, although 
the capitol itself resisted the siege siuTcssfully fl’olyb. a, t.^}. 
The attack upon Rome seems to have f»ee>i a ptifutivi* rsjwth* 
tion, and when it was amiplettsl and indemnity rvtoi trd ftoni 
the Romans the invaders retirisl (I.ivy ; Polyt*. 10 J« c 
Polybius callH these CJaiilv raXarnt and KfXfof fi/, n, m 
their ojuntry FaXar/a, 

3 . A second Brennus, aljout aSi n. c., ted another east- 
ward movenMit which hail a» its the tindlng #4 * tww 
home for the overcrowded Gaufa. RouttsI by the 
at Delphi, the Gauls withdrew from Greet* tttd, Jofelnf an- 

♦ 11 ^. Mmm 4 ##1 ^ ^ 

m w. m 


other detachment of the same general stream of eastward mov- 
ing Celts, invaded Asia Minor (Livy 38'®) . 

Tarn, op. cU. pp. 43^ £. holds that the common treatment of the 
Gallic attack ufKin Delphi as constituting the invasion of Greece is 
incorrect. lie regards the latter as part of a general home-seeking 
movement of the Gauls, of which the former was an incident. He 
bases his opinion ujmn the Koan decree of B. C. 378, which distinguishes 
between two divisions of the Gauls who invaded Greece, one of which 
attacked Delphi. Tarn admits, however, that the events were very 
early confused, 'fhe source for our knowledge of tlic details of these 
event.s is Pausania.s, Ilk. jo passim, csp. to"*-. 

3. At first overrunning the whole peninsula, they were later, 
alKtiif 230 B. r., defeated by Attains I, king of Pergamum. 
As a result of this defeat they were confined to a territory 
.somewhat north aiui cast of the centre, bounded on the north 
by Pithynia and Pafihlagonia, on the east by Pontus, on the 
south by Cappadocia anr! Lycaonia, and on the west by Phrygia, 
and traversed by the rivers Ilalys aiul Sangarius. In 189 B. c. 
this eastern (Jaul, called by the Creeks Calatia, or Gallograecia, 
sliartri the fate of the rest of Asia Minor and came under the 
|x)wer of the Romams, its statas l>eing that of a dependent 
kingdom (Strain, 12.5'). 

4, In the latter half of tfie first century b. c. Galatia was 
materially in<rease«l in extent. On the death of Deiotarus, 
king of Galatia, iilHiiit is. c. 40, Antony conferrerl the kingdom 
of Galatia with the eastern fsart of Pajihlagonia, on Kastor, 
son-in-law of Deiotarus, and to Amyntas, secretary of the late 
Deiotarus, gave a new kingdom, comprising portions of Pisidia 
and Phrygia. A few years later, ». c. 36, Kastor <Med, and his 
Paphbgottian dominion was given to his brother, but hub Gala- 
tian realm to Amyntas. who also retained hb Phrygio-Pbidlan 
fltuninion. In the same year he also received a {sirt of Pam- 
phylia. To unite thwe twi» s«|>aratcd territories, Galatia and 
Phrygiod’bWia, Amyntas was given, al»>, I,ycaonia, or a a>n- 
sidwalde jiortion i»f it. After the liattle of Actium Augustus 
gave to Amyntas the country of Gilkia Tracrhda.* 

♦ Cm- m I#, iti. mS-t 0# GMb 

II ^^4 * f 



5. When in b. c. 25 Amyntas was killed in the war with 
, the Homonades, his Mngdom was converted into a Roman 
province, but the part of Pamphylia which had belonged to 
him was restored to that province, and Cilicia Tracheia was 
given to Archelaus. In b. c. 5 a large part of Paphlagonia was 
added to Galatia, and at some time before, or in, the reign of 
Claudius (41-54 a . d .), the territory of the Homonades.* 

This situation gave rise to a double use of the term TaXar/a 
as applied to a territory in Asia Minor, the newer, offidal sense, 
not at once or wholly displacing the older, ethnographic sense. 
The former is found in the following passages from Pliny, T*ci« 
tus, and Ptolemy: 

Pliny, Hisl. Nat. $■ 146 , »47 ( 4 '*): Simul 4k:eadum videtonf ct 4* 
Galatia, qu* superpoaita ajpiwmaioriex parte Phryni* tenet eaputqu* 
quondam dus Gordium. Qui partem cam insiderc Gallorum TolMtit- 
bogi et Voturi et Ambitouti vocantur, qui Mawnln! et 
reponem Trogmi. Pretenditur CapjawltK-ta a mutenlrlone et (wlia 
ortu, cujus uberrimam iwurtem nccuiavere Tet trwiiite« a, 
bodiad. Et gentes quklem h*. Populi vero a< tetranhiac rtmnet 
numero CXCV. Oppkla Tcctosaitum Amyra, rroRinorum Tavium, 
Tolistobt^orum Pfainuua. Pneter hos wlcbfM Aitalemw, AUioenws, 
Comenses, Didicnsw, Hierorense*. Lyatrcni, Neajwlitanl. tKandenw^, 
Seleucenset, Sdbasteni, Ttmoniaccnscs, ‘rbebasnii. Attinait tJalatk «» 
PanqAyli* Cabidiwn ct Milyaii qui circa Barim sum et Cyilirnkuiii el 
Oroaadkum Pisidto tjractum, Itcni Lycaonte partem iMtenen. 

Tadtus, Bisi. »*: Gdatiam ac Pamphyikn pr»vi««;ia)i f.’alpurnkt 
Asprenati regendas Galba permiMrat. 

Tadtus, Ann. ij**: tgitur dimMs qulliua iWMVtua aut vatetwk 
adversa erat, supplemcntum iwtivit. Kt habit! |ier GaUlkm Cajtpa. 
dodatnque dilectus. 

Ptcdemy 5*: 'H atsiapdjtt-in piv i,4| 

jUptt Til? 'Adas jwrti ytMUidp* 

HawiXi?; i-xh toS ilpi^vou ajiis 'A»% Has ««tA 

XbXov ^levtos XA 8' M ttk 4v«i«X<»e Kaaralsiilw. nAm W ^ 

«e 9 ttpigplvou wlpams w 3 n 4 mif. 

It is Boeckh, C. I. G. ; 

’^tp«w KXoailte RMniiHK f *»» 

v«c KXwKou Kds«(>»$ XtleumS rsMuiwHii «c» k**< 




On the other hand, Memnon, a resident of Asia Minor, writ- 
ing in the second century, refers to the land inhabited by the 
Celtic tribes as “the now so-called Galatia.” 

o5toi 8i icoXXiiv iuXS^vre? aSdn; 4 v«x«ipi)o<*v, xal -cSj? 
a(nal>; dtiMTiiAVOvto tJ)v vOv PoiXaTfav xaXoutUvijv, si? tpsl? (iotpa? Tafixijv 
Siocvsipuxvirt?. Fragg. Hist. Grac. Ed. Didot. Ill 536. 

Other inscriptions (C. I. C. 4016, 4017, 4031, 4030, p. loa), bear no 
decisive testimony, being capable of interpretation in either sense. 
See Ferrot, op. cii., p. loa. C/. Sief. Kom. p. ti; contra Zaim, In^od, 
P(>. S84/., imd Ram. in Stud. BU>. et Ecd. IV *6-38. 


A. The Allmiative Opinions. 

The facts narrated In the preceding paragraphs respecting 
the gradual extension of the term raXar/a over larger areas, 
show that in the fjeriod when Paul wa.s writing his letters the 
term was used in more than one sense of an eastern territory, 
denoting, on the one hand, the district of which the i)Cople of 
Gallic bloo<i who came from the West liad gained control Wore 
the incoming of the Roman power, and, on the other hand, the 
whole of the territory which coiwtituterl the Roman province 



In Acts, chaps. 13, 14, it is related that Paul visited Parn- 
phylia, Pisidia, and Lycaonia, and founded churches in Derte, 
Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch (13“' *■* 14'' ’• This journey 

and these churdies were evidently in the province of Galatia, 
but in its southern portion, not in the part of the province 
which was known as Galatia before the days of Aniyntas. 
There is no intimation that at this time Paul entered the north- 
ern portion of the province, and such an extension of his jour- 
ney northward is practically excluded by Acts 14®* **. If at 
any time he founded churches in tliis latter region, it wm 
doubtless neither at this time, nor on what is c«>mmonly called 
his third missionary journey (Acts x8®'), but on the scc4>nd, in 
the period referred to in Acts 16*. Whether it Is i>rol>ahle tltat 
churches were founded at thLs time will l)e ccmsidercxl later. 
What is important to {)oint out here is that if there were (‘hrls- 
dan churches founderl by Paul in the northern, more strictly 
Gallic portion of the [jrovince of Galatia, the letter to the 
Galatians can not have been addrcs.sed Intth t(» this group 
and to the churches of the southern, non (billi*' j»arf of the 
province. For the letter itself, es|a*cially 3'' 4***, deariy 
implies that the churches adtlressed were all fitutuled in the 
same period, on one general tH^rasion; whereas tlie two groups 
of churches, if such there were, were foutid«‘d one group on 
one journo^, and the other on aiuUher, stwne yearr later, I'his 
bdng the case, if when Paul wrote his epistle thet e were chun her 
in northern Galatia founderl hy him, these churche;, Iring 
in Galatia in whatever sense the term was u^Mni, musi have 
been included in the term “the churches of Ijahitb," ami 
the churches of southern Galatia excludctl. Hut in llmi rvwii. 
since these southern churches wm* hwateii in Gabitia in llie 
larger, Roman, sense. Paul muld not have ln»n unirg ihr 
tenn in that seruw, but in its older, narrower, etlmograiihk 
senae. In short, if there were any churches to nortltern Gafo' 
tk wh«a the tetter was written, IkuPs tetter was aihlrrtwd i«« 
tinan only, and he used the term in the ethnogtaphte sen:* , 

Chi the other hand, if Paul used the term Galati* to the 
Roman sense as dolgmttiiii ^ provltice, then since it is i«f ^ 



tain that there were churches in the southern, non-Gallic por- 
tion of the province, these must have been included in the 
apostle’s phrase, “the churches of Galatia,” and, for the same 
reason that excluded these churches on the former hypothesis, 
the northern churches are now themselves excluded. Indeed, 
the latter could not on this hypothesis have existed when the 
letter was written; for, had they been in existence, they must 
have been included in the phrase, “the churches of Galatia,” 
hut, on the other hand, could not have been included along 
with the churches of southern Galatia, because they were not 
founded on the .same journey as the latter. 

On the basis, therefore, of the Acts narrative, and the evi- 
dence of the letter that “the churche.s of Galatia” to whidi it 
WM addressetl constituted one group founded on the same gen- 
eral ocawion, we must exclude any hypothesis that the letter 
was aridressed to churches in both parts of the province, and 
make our choice Iwtween the two hypotheses: (a) that Paul 
foundeti churches in n<*rthern Galatia on hLs second missionary 
journ^, and addressed the letter to them and them only, using 
the term Galatia in its okler, ethnographic sense; and (b) that 
he ftmndetl no churche.H iit northern Galatia, and that he ad- 
•Irrssed his letter to the chun-hes of Derhc, Ly.stra, Iconiura, 
iintl (I'isidian) Antuxh, using the term Galatia in the i)olitical 

'Iltftr*' in ladeeit a third vf*., he founded rhurches In 

mwtherii *m hi.<i second mWrmary Journey, but that he wrot« 

hfe letter Ijefore fmmding these chunhes, »ml swldmsseil it to the 
«nly chtto hr# then existing in (lalatk, tliose of the southm |mrt of 
the province. But this hyjerthok will not, in fact, rwjuire sr^jarate 
fw the mtndnation of the evkleiice fw the other two 
will in« hlentally suffo* t» i!ww Ita it«jtn>i)*bility. 

It is incMfnlKnt ujKjn us, therefore, t<t consider tht* two 
rfirial «jue»ti«Mis, vi/.,, whsit was I’aul's use of the term Galatia, 
and whether he founded churchat in nurthern Galatk, 



B. The History of Opkdon. 

Before considering these questions, however, it will be well 
to sketch briefly the history of opinion on the matter of the 
location of the churches. 

Andent interpreters took it for granted without dlw'niasion that the 
churches were in the northern, Gallic, part of the province (r/. Ziliii, 
K<m» p. 12), and this view has been adoptol in modem titn« hf 
Neander, F^mung u, LeUung^ 1S3S; ConylKiare and ffowma, SL 
Fatdj 1851, and various later editions; HilgenMd, 

Farrar, St Fatd, 1880; IColsten, Evangdium dm Fmiliii, lite; M* J* 
Holtamann, Eirddtung^ 1886; Schtirer, JaM* fMr pffiL Tkid* voh 
XVIII, 1892; Godet, Inlfodmiim, 1S94; Jiilkher, MMkMmi, 1^*, 
1906*; Chase in Expositor ^ Ser. IV, vols. VIII, IX; **IMt 

UcchtsverhiltniMe des A|>osteIs Paulas,” fn ZifllF* 1901, p. 
dd in Emyc, Bth. voL II, cok. 1590-1016; Stclnmann, JtHf. 
mU dm GakUerbrkfs, 1906; Lesirkrek dm Gdokfhfl 0 , Md"* 
fatt, Ifdroducdm^ hy the following commenlatori on this 

qp^tle; Hllgenfeld, 1852; Wicaekr, 1850; Meyer, 1841 md 
kter editions; lightfoot, fS65 and various later fHlIlions; Ellkoll, 
1865; Alford, 1849*, 1871*; Sieflfert, Fliidlay* In OVI. TmL 


The South-Gaktbn view was first proposed hy |. J. Hihiiddt. rwlor 
of Ilfeld, whom J. IX MIchaells vomli^iwl in Ids Emlmtmg*, 1788, 
(See Zahn, jElnldl** I 1^, E. T. p. 185, btife for i fCAil 1788); Ihm 
advocate more at tength by Myrnster in im 4 m llrl>f m 

dk Gahier In his KImmm *815; tiy lldttgcf, IkiWf#* iSi;* 

and Thicwch, Dk Kkche im upmidm^ Xdldkr^ It 

rroived fresh altmtbn when Ferrot mlvocrntf*! Il In liii 1 % 
Frmimo Rem&m^ 1867, and since hk day has twn 4 «l«'fiihr<l by 
R«m», SL i8fk), and various kter alltbits; lUmmih 
iummlikke Zeiiimrkkkki by Eammy, who hm wfiltea voliioilnufidy 
in Its defence (Ckumk im Rmmm Empim^ «%,.|h i%f** Afttdb iHHm 
d B€ch$imikm^ voi IV, 1806; HklotkS Cio»«#«lory m 

and various espetlally In fh Rtpmkm'n t«pfifklh b 
ExpmMof^ Ser. IV, vol. IX; In FI# IV, vnl. 

Ctoen, **Ble AdrMalen tbm Gakterbrlfk/* In XwTk XXXVIf 

30 -“ 43 |; •!» Fadm, voL I, 1904; MrGlieft» dp* i%ii 

AAwlA, Fii Bpl$^ $0 iM G4kikmM: III il^, 

ItodiM, dpMk Jp, |, W«l»i, k PIF,. 

^ X; ifooj Wiwidtai^ In Mmw fA, tl^ 

1900, ¥m t., twb ifiF; 

i:ps; L»ki, Ffa Arller if Si* tfiii iitwtt, la 



Of the above discussions those of Lightfoot, Chase, Schmiedel, and 
Moffatt on the North-Galatian side, and those of Ramsay, Woodhouse, 
Zahn, Clemen, and Lake on the South-Galatian side, are most worthy 
of consultation. 

From this sketch of the history of opinion, we return to con- 
sider the evidence on which a decision of the question must be 
based, and under the two heads named above. 

C. Pad's Use of the Term FaXar/a 

I. The letter is addressed rak ^KKXi/cr^aw r^s PoXaTifa?. 
It is apparently the habit of the apostle, in speaking of churches, 
either to name the individual church by the city in which it 
was kxsated or by the {jerson in whose house it met, or grouping 
them tc^ether, to follow the Roman political divisions, and to 
designate each group by the name of the Roman province in 
which it belonged. See, on the one hand, i Thes. i* a Thes. i‘ 
t (!or. I* a Cor. i‘» Rom. x6‘< * i Cor. 16“^ Col. 4“ Phm. *, 
the four latter Wng cases of a church in a house, the rest 
churches in a city; and, on the other hand, a Cor. 8‘ (^»' rats 
hKKifffims MawSoj'/at) t ('or. x6“* a (.'or. i”*. 

Itulwd, it seems to lie i‘aul'.s habit not simply in the designai- 
tion of churches, but in general, to the geographical terms 
that were ofHdally recognised by the Roman Ck>vcrnment. 
Thus he u.sea names of cities, Antioch, Ephe»u.H, Troas, The»- 
salonka, Philippi, Athens, Corinth, Jerusalem, Rome, and of 
Roman provinces, Judiea, Syria, Cilicia, Asia, Macedonia, 
Achaia, but never Lycaonia, i^idUa, Mysia or Lydia. 

It i« imietti contended by .%htn. (Rncye. vdi. U, re!. 1604), and 

l»y Skf. that iwiwe vf Uwe tern* asay ba used by Paid to their jK^tular 

clhne^rsiihk mtm rather than to tbek slrlt-dy poUtkal This 
b dnubtieitt to be admitterl, but the absence of any terms that an 

ttflanhiitmststy ethot^fritohic and nun'iudithal, and of any (.tear rase 

*i tlv ewitlaytueMt d a Imn of doubie meaning in the non-tiolitkal 
wnie hnm littl* ground for thk hyfiotbeida. 

To iW» Uniterm emjdtrymml <d Roman terms Jud*a can not be dt«I 
m m mr.rtfUiAn. Var throughout the {wriod to wMch three kiicn of 
Paul iraf* wrltttii to whkh ha mtatim Judaa fse* < Thes. s'* t** 



2 Cor. Rom. i 5 ® 0 j Judsea was a Roman province under procurators^ 
and though it sustained in this period as in the years 6-41 a. d. a kind 
of dependence on the province of Syria (Schiirer, Gesck d, iMd. F.% 
voL I, p, 564, E. T- I ii 165) it was clearly recognised as a province 
under its own governor. See more fully in detached note on Jud«u 
PP* 435 /• Nor is it probable that Illyricum in Rom. 15** is an excep- 
tion. For in Paul’s day this terra was the name of a Roman provln*T. 
extending norriiwest along the Adriatic from the river Drilon to the 
Arsia (Mommsen, Provinces oj the Roman Empire, I <14/.; art. Illyri- 
cum,” in Encyc. Bib, and HDB x vol. cd.) and to its tKUchT Paul niiiy 
quite possibly have penetrated. The argument of WcMaihousif; in 
Encyc, Bib. vol. II, col. 2161, that Rom. 15*^ mmt ffiean 

“into,” and that because we have no other evidence tliat Paul ever 
went into the province of Illyricum, we must assume tlwt by Illyrhmm 
he meant Illyris Graeca, that portion of Macedonia which adjoins 
Illyricum on the southeast, is, to say the Icasit, iaconcliiiiv«f. For 
neither does jj^xpt naturally mean “into,” nor h it explainnl why, if 
Paul meant Illyris, he should have written nor liavr wr 

any more evidence that Paul went into or to Illyris Ckif<4, than we 
have respecting Illyricum, this passage furnirihlng all that we 
in either case. 

In X Cor. 16*, which in of peculiar interest Iwcausr of it a of ifir 
very name with whose usage we are anwmwd, there ii a rcfrrrtor to 
the collection of money for the Christians of JrruMirm, wliif h ah.#? 
spoken of in a Cor., chaps. B, 0, and in Rom. I'Voni thrv 
saga it is dear that during the two year^ or so nexl |irrrrdini tlie 
writing of the Epistle to the Romans and PaiiPs last vkit to Irnimikitu 
he gave much attention to the gathering of gills for the pmt f 
of Jemsalem from among his Ckntilr tliurrliw. 1‘he Cnriniltkii 
s^ea diow that in the gathering of the funtls he riigagwl the •%efvicrn 
of hk Mlow-ml»bnariei, and Arts m* suggests tlt4t In the - 

rion of the gito to Jerusalem he ai^H:kii»d with him^lf reftrewiif ailw* 
of the churches from which the ^fts ifamr. Now If h rigiilfirwil I hat 
whenever in his eplstl« he speaks of thb eiitrr|iri.**c hr mm liir naiiirt 
of the province (see 2 Cor. ip < Rom, md m mi’li way » to 
imply that he maile the province the unit ami plMr?| tlir ihurrhff* ml 
one province against thm ol another In friwily rivtlry, llii'i 
f«ti that Cklatk in 1 Cbr. *6* Is li^tf a provliirr wiine. If ilw 
in&rf, exclude the pfwihlllly that In Cklaila ih^re were iw#i 4 
Aurdia, Ih^ of ioulhtm (liJalhi and #1 ntrlli^rfi 
But ind^^rfeiatly of that qutttbti, jl km a rm He 

of gi^mphfcal lerwt, and In iriti 1 Cbr , rtf 

and Arti It fivoum the qplnfo® that. ih#fr wm l»iil nm ^mt$p 
of Galtllatt clui^«, vli., of mulhera Cldaila. Awl tife in i <#11 



confirms the ^ew that PauFs use of terms is exclusively Roman, For 
the names mentioned in Acts 2 o^ compared with i Cor. i6», suggest 
that m he had gathered the money by provinces, so he selected the 
representatives of the churches who were to accompany him to Jeru- 
salem on the same basis. In that cast Sopater, Aristarchus, Secundus, 
and probably Luke himself, represented Macedonia. The absence of 
representatives frenn Acdiaia is strange, especially in view of i6®; it has 
been suggest (*d and is not improbable that the Corinthians, modifying 
the miggcHtion of Ihuil in t Cot, *, or ixjssibly taking it in the sense 
whic'h they had the discernment to recognise to be his real thought, 
designated Paul as their representative. Tychicus and Trophimus 
are the delegates from Asia, and Gaius and Timothy from Galatia. 
But iLH lK)th these latter are from southern Galatia, northern Galatia 
Is ufireprestmled, a situation not, indeed, imfiosHible if the churches of 
Ciaktia in t Cor. i6* means those of northern Galatia, or those of 
lioth iwirtheni and s<'nithcrn Galatia, but in either case improbable. 
Of the three hy|KJthi»*s, then, (a) that **the churches of Galatia,*^ in 
I Cor. ifi* are the churches of northern Galatia, the name being used 
ftlifiographically; (b) that the term k used provinrially, but the 
rluirt'hrs were of two groups, those ot northern Galatia and those of 
iottthern Chdatla, and (c) that the term h used provincially and tlm 
rtiurclir4 are thorn of southern Galatia, there king none in northern 
Ckhilia, the third k most ronsktent with the evidence. The first not 
cifily in;ikfvi the urn* of the term different from that which Is usual with 
Paul, lull U fit variance with the natunil Implication of Arts ao* by 
pulling the rlnm lira in one region ami the delegateii in another. The 
wrntnl h ofirfi to the lan'oiiil of ihetir objtH^tions and alio finds in Corln- 
tliktii a illffrrrtil uw of the phnm and term from that which arcuri 
ill (Lilaliifrt- The fiilnl k roird/^tent with all the rvkknce. 

Ilir fvidrniT cif the Pauline epktles k, therefore^ tlecidtdly 



It is still further somewhat condBirmed by tihe facts w^poc^of: tht 
usage of geographical terms in general. The octenMon of a name to 
cover a larger territory and to include territoria fomerly betiing other 
names is a common historical phenomenon. It occurs as the ifsult 
of conquest, bestowal of territory by a superior power, or in the mm 
of cities by growth and incorporation. Now the general piweediiig 
in such cases is that it is precisely the name that is spread over » larger 
territory that loses its original narrower significance. The names of 
the absorbed territories remain as official or unofficial designatiani of 
subdivisions of the larger territory because they have received no new 
significance, while the territory whose name has bmu extendal over 
the larger area either retains no distinctive name or act|ulre* a ntw 
one. Thus, when the name France, which formerly a 

comparatively small area around Paris, was gradually extemW over 
the whole kingdom of the Ca|)etian kings, the originaJi France came 
to be known as lie de France. When Brandenhuif and Prw^ 
(Borussia) came under the rule of a single king, and, the Intervinli^ 
territory being added, the name Prussia was catended to cover the 
whole kingdom, the original Prussia came to be known as East Prus- 
sia, and the intervening territory as West Frtissla. As the umm of 
dtia, London, New York, Boston, Chicago, have Iwen riluniiW to 
include the suburbs, the latter have retidned thrir naniw as offidal 
or unofficial derignatiom, but the original territory hm riilicf lt«l 
distinctive name, or has acquirer! some new imme. It can tiot^ 
be affirmdl that this Is the Invariable practice. Where chaii«« In Ifee 
eitent ot territory designated by a certsdn name are Irniutnt md In 



view of the evidence cited above on pages xx shovring that in the 
case of the term PaXortfa the more extended, political usage did not 
wholly supersede the older, narrower, ethnographic usage, they arc of 
value only as somewhat confirming the probability that the wider and 
later usage was the common one. 

It has been urged, indeed, and the contention has been sup- 
ported by the weighty authority of Mommsen (op. cit. p. xxiv), 
that Paul could not have addressed the inhabitants of the cities 
of southern Galatia as Galatians, as he does the recipients of the 
letter in but that the term necessarily designates inhabitants 
of Gallic Galatia. The argument iierhaps assumes a greater 
difference between the populations of northern and southern 
Galatia rcstKictively than actually existed. Both were doubt- 
less of very much mixed blood, with Gallic elements in both 
regions. {See Rendalt, “The Galatians of St. Paul,” in Exposi- 
tifft Set. IV, vol. IX, pp. esp. 256/.) Nor docs it 

seem possible to name any other term which would be inclu- 
sive enough for his purpiisc. If the churches addressed were 
those of I)erl>e, Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch, which he founded 
on his finit missionary journey, he could not well address their 
members by any single term excq>t Galatians. 

D. JM Paid Found Churches in Northern Galatia t 

F<»r the discussion of this question there ia, unfortunately, 
but little evidence in the cpiatlw t>f Paul indqjendent of his ime 
of the term Galatia, and even such an there is, is of significance 
only in connection with the evident^ o! the Book of Acts. 

I. Paufs tiinwi in Galatia. 

In Ga!> 4** Paul my» that he preached the gospel to the Gala- 
on the ftrst octaMon (ri wpdrefioif) tnscause of a weakoM 
of the flcdi. Whatever die meaning of rh vfidrepoo (see more 
fully on 4'*), it la clear that the paiMge refers to the original 
evangeiinttei rd the Galatians. Thai this ocoirrdl h* 
keiduMu ilIgnlfiM cither dial Paul wm detained by iUncM tn 
a oeiiBify udiich he had Inteaded ner^y to pa«i thurou|dti 



that he was obliged for his health’s sake to visit a country 
which otherwise he would not have visited at that time, anti 
that in either case he availed himself of the opjKirtunity to 
deliver his Christian message to the inhabitants of the region. 
The latter part of the same verse with its reference to that in 
his flesh which was a trial to them implies that the was 
of a more or less repellent nature, and that, even if it (Kttnirred 
before he entered Galatia and was the occasion of his going 
there, it continued while he was there. If the <'hiir<'Iu*ri t»t 
which he was writing were those of southern Galatia, the* illtie:*'i 
here referred to must have occurred in I’amphylia t>r sit {’ira'disui 
Antioch on his first mi.ssionary journey (Acts '*). Ram. 
has made the suggestion that Paul contraded malarial fever 
in the coast lands of Pamphylia, and for tlii.*! reason sought the 
highlands of southern Galatia instead «»f either anUintiing his 
work in Pamphylia or pushing on into Asia, a.H ht! had ititenifletl 
to do. It is perhap.s ef]ually jjossible that having gone to 
Pisidian Antioch with the intention of going to .\sia and Iwing 
detained there by illness, he aliandoned for flu; time his plan 
of entering Asia, and turned eastward into the cities of Lycaonia. 

If the churches were in northern Galatia lie must luivc ftillrn 
ill at Pisidian Antiwh on his secomi mis.4<mary journey or at 
some place in that vicinity, and b«*n let! to tudake ItimseK to 
northern Galatia; or having alrcarly, for some other reasim, gofte 
into northern Galatia from Antiirh or loonium, with the iiilrii'' 
tion of passing through, ht; have luToine ill there, aiul in 
either case must have usetl the iwiml of his detention in preach 
ing to the Galatians. The relation of his illntws to the rvidrm e 
of Acts will be discussed more fully Imlow. Taken by itself it 
fumMes no ground of dectdoti for either NarthdUlaiian or 
South-Galatian viav. 

a. The evidence «rf Acts i6* and Acts lA**. 

Incidental use has l>«n made of Acts above to show tiui 
the churches addr«aed by Paul wvm either in wattem Gaktia 
or northern Gidatia, not both. The Acta evidetw wMst mw 
be examined mote luUy. 



In Acts i6' we read: 5^ rfjv i^pvjtav Kal TaXariKi/v 

y&pav^ KCjo\v9^PTes virb tov aykv wvevparos XaXTjffai t6p X<^ 
yov iv 'Aeria, i\&tipres Bk Karb rtjp TAvcriap iirelpa^op els 
T^p "BiSyplap iropevdtjpai. Kal ovk etacrep avrobs t 6 irvtvpa 

In v.‘» it is related that the travellers had visited Derbe and 
Lystra; vv.‘^-s having related the story of the circumcision of 
Timothy, v/ states that they went on their way through the 
cities, V.® adding that the churches were strengthened in their 
faith and increased in number. Inasmuch as Paul’s plan, as 
set forth in rs”, was to visit the brethren in the cities wherein 
he and Barnabas had previously preached, and as in r6‘ they 
were moving westward through the southern part of the prov- 
ince of Galatia, it is natural to that “the cities” of v.'‘ 
are Ictmium and Antioch, and that “the churches” of v.‘ are 
the churches of those cities. A visit to Iconiura is, indeed, 
almost implied in v.*.t 

The most obvdous and, indeed, only natural explanation of 
the phrase ^pvyiop Kal I'aXariKifP j^pajp in v.‘ is that 
4^pvyiap and VaXartKi^p are bt)th adjectives and both limit 
X^pO'^. Geographical name-s ending in -ta were originally cm- 
ployeti as adjectives, and their customary use as nouns with 
an article precretiing is a reminiscence of thdr use as adjectives 
with 'i'he presence t)f such an adjective with an article 

•Tti« Ittovo a itw tm by Tat. WII. li. U ibt r««diiif ol NABC0 

•i. #43. fii4, tt|» Ipife. ItmlJ Atik E|4pb. ili k 

»4 fll.E if l$m^ l^rt. ttfi, ItNf l»«trf rtwllfli « ttafct lfe« 

to m m mtwmp^ to tbi pwawi d wfatefct 

h mkwml l#r 4 purtteijM. ittt li sMi lk*l A# 

miilid *iy fell In wwm wiy. tWn prt^blllty ilw 

mmm il #iif»r«btl e¥Wkiii’« Imw m «»« «a«sat4i Awbl* 

4 4#AWrMf Ifi Si p It h Ckmk ^ Im. Mmp,* 

p ill* tmpk^4f in# 

I Pi IV. Vllt p. ioH. €mtmk ll*t ^ ir,i 

« #ili i4 d ml i^t lb# pifi^rApli ptopwly bffto will m i« ItiiS 
tiff# k * Mwf« f|«# mtf wm, 8*il iW« o» m* iwto* 

mip #lt m^f IN rrana’lgfll^ ckwi M A «« 

li It iN tk# t%. u^kt II 'IN wbfcl 

k'&m^ i*hm awiN mipiMi bn vww, N#ilin«, lN#4«ri« i«* N 

Imm sb« tiiNf %\* mm m N tV-, piNMy 

m4 tHi . m l*f M n Ns i #1 Sttt iNl 

IN hm* M pmm iNi ft li i 



before it and the word fidter it almost of neccsdty marks 
the intervening word ending in as an adjective and die 
joining of the words ^pvylav and FaXart^oji^ by with die 
article before the first one only, implies that the region desig- 
nated by %a)pa is one, Phrygian and Galatian. In what sense 
it is one, whether in that it was inhabited throughout by a 
mixed Phrygian-Galatian population, or that it was in one 
sense (e. g. ethnographically) Phrygian, and in another (e. |. 
politically) Galatian, or diat it constituted one physiographic 
region, composed of two parts politically or ethnographically, 
Phrygian and Galatian respectively, is not decisively iridirateii 
The unity which is implied may even be only that of the Jour- 
ney referred to, the two districts constituting one in die miiifl 
of the writer because they were traversed in a single Journey. 

The contention of Moff. p. following tiL 

pp. 404 JT., that a noun and x^m h liy 

oniy, can not be supfiorted by Acts a***, where indml 

stantively used, but h shown to lie m useil by the ab»etire of 
nor by Acts iS**; for, though the wordn are the sanir m In ic*% It Is 
not certain that k a noun, nor It It b, ran if lie lnfrrre*l ihmt 

it is » also in ib«, rince It k the order of wiirik alone Ihal in ti** Itimli 
to estabIMi the substantive chwaeitr of awl lhal «dtr k 

not found in i6«; nor by Acto 19**, ii«XI 4 ¥ iwtl 

nor by 37*, tV KsXtalov swi for, Ibwili tlifiif 

both fflimtraie the familiar fact that wwdi la m may te *at>» 
sttntively, arwl show that, when two popmpliril ttww 
by mi and ttie ariidt preedits ihn imi waly* the imlly tliiw IniplW 

ii Mil n«f«arlly fioliticid or get^rai^kil, but may I# oaly Ite ^ 

the itlnemry, ihvy carry m Impllcatlwa rwfitetiiig the gfamiiiaiiral 
eomtimlloii of ?.iudt a phimif m that of 16*. Chi the ath« hawk 
Ltft. awl Ram. are right In rkliiihig a pnwiimpluit in favi*m i 4 fli# 
vkw ihal the country wifitfd to la la #»§ w* It k 1^1. »f 

the that this «e canalfy k la ounp jwl 

in Motltr (lalailM* Sm, e. Aits 17**, iptr “Ifeinitifcw wl XwiiA# 
Such a k fedW iui iifi, 

*i«.% ll» feet Ifea tlii» swftli M k Ito l^ii *1# 

twAwiat art I* i« m atth li ih» w# ## 1 m 

A mm m , «« Wi ^^mmm irt hii Ni m 4 

M titw^ ii i 4i^lif »»» im §^ilwn ImM, Im mm 

Ittt » $i pi%« U »ii a mm itif’ ^ 



mt Ram. have died any examples of such a use of words. Chase, op. 
dl., states the grammatical prhidple quite correctly: ‘‘From the point 
of view of the writer they are invested with a kind of unity sufficiently 
defined by the context.” It is, indeed, surprisingly difficult to dte 
examples of phrases similar in structure to the phrases wMch Acts 
anploys here and in i8®*. An examinarion of all the passages in which 
Josephus uses the words 'Iou3ot^a, 'l5outxa(a, Sjapuacpfa, Sapwcpktc, 

PaXiXaCa, or Ilipafa, fails to discover a single example* The ex- 
pression TtoopaCaC xal Tpaxt*>vfirtBoc Lk. 3* has been 

appealed to on both sides, but apparently can not, for lack of exact 

knowledge of the j>olitical status of the region in Luke% day, be counted 
as furnkhing decisive evidence on either side. See Geo. Adam Smith 
in J^posHiPr^ Ser. IV, voL IX, p. 231* 

It remains then to ask what region in the vicinity of Antioch 
or Iconium capable of Mng described as in any sense Phiygian 
and Galatian also meets the further requirements of the con- 
text The pmsible hypotheses may be conveniently presented 
by considering the various views of modern scholars. 

The following writers supi)Ose that the phrase refers to^ or 
inctudes, northern Galatia, and that on the journey churches 
were founded in northern (klatia. 

Lift. tak« ralaxtx’iv m adjectives both llmitinf 

iwid both used ethnographlrally. First translating the phrase, “the 
Phryglin anil Gaktlan aiuiitry” and Interpreting It m designating 
**mme reglcin wlikh might be mM to belong either to Fhrygm or 
Galatia, m the parts of each continuous to the other” {Com, p. ao), 
ht pre^nily irtntlato It “the rrghm of Fhrygla and Galatia,” adding: 
“Thi ctiiiniry which mm mm evangelised might l>e etIW Indiierently 
Fhry^ or C'kliiik* It ww, In fact, the litnd orfflnidiy Inhabited by 
bel ittlj^uently caxupkd by Gauls” CCw» p. a#), llie 
^tirnty Lift* to have eittnded to P^nua, Ancyra, 

Tavlum. Tbt grammalkat h »uiid, but nelllitf the 

Wfertnce liM the country wferred to k in «it mtm Phryglwi and 
III wttllitr mmm Clalitkn, tuw the sp«l& imiwiloii that It was 
Phry^wi m lli p^uklbn mid Gaktto In !t« kler, fotbwi 

ff«ii prtwiiilfcal piwitoi or from mj nlher evldtw*. To 
Ifel lAlt/i cifilnioii It wuW bf metmxy m «how from the mate*! 
Ikit tl« mif Fhryikft md Cttlaiian rountry tliti mceti lit cfiadltbui 
#1 Aiiti 16* • If ihil It* which he Mm Iht m at Itiil tlmt m 
» wti lit Thk i« wit Iht r»it, bill m 

Wi Iftlffpetmtloii » wikui iliknlty in w.% 



a66vi:®<; U t?)V Mu<y(av lictCp«t;ov dq t^v BiOuvCov «o^yi|ww. 
Taken togetJaer, the two verses represent the missiontriei m Inrning 
back from Asia to pass through the Fhiygian and Galatian country, 
and in the course of that journey reaching a point at which they were 
over against Mysia with Bithynia as an alternative d«tirmtion. But 
a journey from Pisidian Antioch to Pessinus, Ancyra, mtl Tavium 
would at no point have broug'^t the travellers **over against Myrfa/* 
in the most probable sense of that phrase, viz., at a tK)int where My»ia 
lay on a line at right angles with the direction in which they were trav- 
elling, nor in the possible sense of ^'opjKwite,” i. c,, facing It. Kvrii If 

passed through the Phrygian and Galatian country** lie sup|M»e«h 
as is very improbable, to refer to a journey Into the Plirygkfi and 
Galatian country and out again in approximately the revere tlirer < 
tion, say from Antioc'h northeast to Tavium or Anryra, and westward 
to Dorylaiott or Nakoleia, they couhl not be said at any time l« have 
come xerr^ Mwfav, since in the whole of the return jiiiimry they 
would have been facing Myma, and at no pednt over agalfisl it At 
Nakoleia, Dorylaion, or ICotiaion, e. they would have |>ern umk 
Bt6uv(av, not mrdi M uafov. Nor can xatA"* taken in its 
sense of **near/* since they would have been near Mysht «iidy when 
they had prac:ttcaily Bithynia. Nor i^ It riwy to adjunt thk 

interpretation to the statement of Gal. 4*^ mnMrml dmw, Wm 
nortWn Galatia a place to whh^h a sick man would go from Pkidkii 
Antioch for his health? Or If Paul is nupiai^wl to haw Iwi |ii4»4iii| 
through northern Galatia and to have brrn fleiAtuerl tlirrr by 
what w« his destlnaflun? h it likely that with 
for work In the centres of populathm he iwutitl law lu imm 

thmugh northerrs Galatia i^thout lumcWni fur Ihe «ii uf 
Paphli^oiila or Pontus? 

Chase C*Th« CJalatm of tte Acts** in Ser. IV, vul. VIII, 

pp. 4oi«4io), with wkim» aliKJ, Wendt iiihHlamlalty igrm iii the 
later idltloiii of his A^skigmekkki^ inlnffirets t|i# wl 

raXamailv m meaning ** Phrygia aiul the Gakikfi ftfkft/* 

and Inds the Iwc^ dktrirta thus referred lo In llw coiintiy 
the citl« ol Lyeaonia imd whirh Patil mm Itavlag 

llithynli m the minh. itlwten ^mm titlw #f ll# 

§M ilthynk, Chwe mys l»wii it Pliff^ Gikii* 

It.” to tufii fwntwinl, tfct tratrlew . , , hittit Utrlf 

»rthwtfcl» lowing along the iwl* il mnm% lllelf, whhit Itil 
Hy^h fliry^ to NitoWk, Al tWi tlty *dS *ti*l 



entered the Galatian district on the cast. We may conjecture that 
they halted at Pessinus.’* This interpretation again fails to do justice 
to stocTd Muerfav. By shortening the journey eastward as compared 
with that proposed by Ltft., the difficulty is made somewhat less glar- 
ing, but not removed. To express the idea of Chase the author should 
have omitted the reference to the Galatian region in v.« and after v.^ 
have inserted a statement to the effect that they^mtered Galatia and 
again returning passed by Mysia, etc. The view also encounters the 
difficulty that it finds no probable place for the illness which became 
the occasion of the preaching in Pcssinus. 

Sief. iKom,\ pp. 9-17, esp. 15) interprets t-ijv ^puyfav xal FaXa- 
of Acts i6« as designating the country northeast of 
Fisidian Antioch and supposes that the journey here spoken of prob- 
ably pa»ed to the west of the Sultan Dagh and brought the apostle 
to Fessinus mi Kinnaborion and Ammorion. The churches of Galatia 
he would locate in Fessinus, Germa, and neighbouring places. Schm. 
(Encyc* Bib. vol If, <0!. 1600, 1606 /.) and Moff. {Inirod. pp. 
adopt iubstantiaily the same view though with less s|>ecific defimtion 
of the route and location of the churches. 

The following writers, differing in their interpretation of the 
gwgraphical phrase, are agreed in the opinion that the fmssago 
does not refer to the founding of churches: 

Ram, holds tlua. the reference is to the wtatern half of the southern 
iwrtion of the province of C#alatia, the regiem of Iconium and Antioch^ 
Wng tuiiwi Phrygian Immse ethnographically so, anti Galatian be- 
cause fKilitlrally m, Ckurrk m Romm Hmfm\ p. 77; 5 l. Fowl, 
pp. I So/,; Alni. Bik d FmL IV sfi; <m the diversity of interpretatbui 
advmaieil by Rum,, ^ Srhm. in Bib, vol II, col 1598, itoi /, 

Apfutrently, lnde?tl the author of Acts hw already narritecl tha 
through this country in v.c But Ram, explains vv.** » not 
ts a continuation of the narrative, but m a (imrenthetkiil) dasetriptbn 
of fmi*% pfmmhm in the ihurches, the narrative being contlmied in 
V**# w.*”* covtring OcrlM and Lystra, v.* lamium and Antioch* The 
father ob|ectlim to his view that the remainder of v.<, ** having been 
torbldcteii by the Holy Spirit to speak the word In naiurahy 
topite that ai the ^glnnini of their journey the imvclleri were alrculy 
m thi bonltri of Asia, Ram. mseki to obviate by iuppoalni 
to A fmrtkipk of subsequent action, refcrrfiig to m cvtal which 
afitr Ihc journey throi#i tht Fhryglaii and Galatian 
c«ittlry, Later Graek, In inuthmlar the «:0'ad hall of Act*, 
to of m aori^ participii tht piKipi 


verb and denoting an action subsequent to that of the verb* But 
»o)Xu0ivt«q does not seem to be an example of this rather rare umge. 
The most probable occurrences of it, in Acts at least, are of two classes: 
(a) Instances in which the participle follows closely upon the verb 
and expresses an action in close relation to the verb, approximating 
in force a participle of identical action. So, c. Acts i.V, where 
doxcKsipsvot, while not denoting an action identical with that of 
xetT^vnjaav, is intimately 'as-sociated with it as its piir(ioHe. Simi 
laxly, in Test. XU Pair. Reub. (v)) Mfwvo; is not identical with 
iitivOei, but Is its immediate consequence. A probable, thoiiRb 
perhaps not certain, case of similar character in found in Jos. (ynira 
Ap. I®* ( 7 }, 0*) Instances in whnh the. partifiple is 

far removed from the verb, and, the computations of the -entente 
obscuring the relation of the different part* of the nentente to one 
another, an additional fact is loosely adidetl at the eml hy an aorint 
participle. Examples of this form are found in Acts i.i** ii’*. In 
Acta i6S on the other hand, we have neither form. The wntenie is 
short and uninvolvetl, but the action denoted hy the {Mti<i(tie, U sub' 
sequent to that of the verb, is not involved in it as purptwe «f mult, 
but marks a distinctly new and Important stage of the narrative, 
When to these considerations it is added that the interprrtation of 
wiiXu94vts< as a piirtkiple of aubse«iueiit action Involves taking 
w.o ‘ as [larenthctical, ami the tirst part «»f vA ai in effect a re}»rtitii*n 
of these vv., the weight, of obiectlon to the view as a whole compel » 
its rejec;tion. Taking vv.*- ‘ in their ♦cbvioiw senw as referring to * 
journey beyond f.ystra, v.‘ as an addiliott to what has already hewn 
said, and the participle in what Is in this conneetba It* wittally otivtow* 
force, vh., as expressing the eatao of the m:tkm «teiwt«l by the veili, 
the whole pajaiage i» self-consdsteat an*! nimple. Rant.'* view htrak* 
down under an accumulation of lnijw*»babllitim. Ttw? oidnion ex 
pressed by C.ifford (ap. tU. p. i») i* that pntvimidy reathed by the 
present writer, vis,, that whilo the supijoscil grammalkal »*#«e i» 
itself tawihte, and Ram.'s view can not bo sahl to have "shipwrr. kni 
on the rock of tJreek grammar'* (a* tTiiwe affirmsl, the prcwol |viw»age 
can not be regarded a* an example of that usage. 

Olfford interpreting imk ir^v Miwfa* In v.* m meanitig "over ammt 
Mynda,” i. e., at * point edwre the roml to Myda lay at rlghl aiutfes to 

* Birr »«it If. (Mmt in S«. !V, vd. X m II #i sad <«<ws !.,»■ 

p. IA 1 . Bor (»*, «< iW» iM«|« sddJiainil «*> tkBW •ttwl la BMr. ip* f1*l ft' its, 

irnwriwo; r«f. xn Pm. *«*, *, i|. Hniaeim (rM hy tJUliwd iftm %uiAwlj r%m. 

Ate. Prm*^. tCifcnote al iMteh simp. *: ***•*«, I* l» ♦*»#»*» « 

tMte*. ai. lAb "Ifo Mtk** hh iixinaeh m a dn«m.te hteitry Mai dMavHi* 

Wid"} Chnmkm Itehte. ped. ipste* hy iMh. MMfidt Mee, I rti. <#»*«••*••« 
Tl»t the «M «r ihh iiSMii **• smlMiwi «v*» ieiswil oteiwte at tPm. mm tmm wdte, 
icaMtatii tlMW H, T..<ls«»a«t, pobaipii ^ntaMi IM mtM, 



the course which the travellers were up to that point pursuing, sup- 
poses the phrase x’Jjv ^puyCav ’)co(l ra^axocfjv designate the 

frontier of Phrygia and Galatia (apparently taking the latter term as 
the name of the province), and to refer to the country between Pisidian 
Antioch and the point at which the road to Troas branches from the 
road to Bithynia, probably Nakoleia. This view is similar to that of 
Chase as respects the route followed, differing, however, in that it 
does not assume a journey eastward to Pessinus and the founding of 
churches. The principal difficulty with Gifford's suggestion is that 
a Ene drawn from Antioch to Nakoleia apparently lies so far from the 
Gaktian border that the country through which one would pass would 
be much more naturally called simply Yet it is, perhaps, 

poMibk that the roati actually taken, for reasons unknown to us, 
pa«ed m far to the cMt as to make this expression wholly natural. 

Zthn prefers to take the article widi only and to interpret 

the lack of the article with as indicating that Paul 

and his companions only touched upon a part of the region so desig- 
nate. This interpretation is manifestly untenable on grammatical 
groundi. Hie iugg«itioa supposed to be conveyed could not be indi- 
catdi by the omisdon of the article. As his second choice Zahn pro- 
poses the view that the article belonp to both nouns, and tlie whole 
phrase refers to territory which was fmrtly in Phrygia and partly in 
Galatia, both terms being ethnographkally understoiKl. Such a jour- 
ney starting from Antioch would, iHtrhafw, include Amorion, Pessinui, 
Germa, and Nakoleia or Dorylalon. Emki$uni, I 136; E. T. I 1B7/,, 
esp. I So fm*; Cmn,» p. i6. St*e also Moff. pp. Such an 

iateiqiiretation k grammatically sound and otherwifie entirely unobjec- 
tionable. Rather better than (Efford's, It accounts for the use of 
In preference to TaXatky, or P^Xatix'^v iicapx#f«v, 
which would imturaEy have been chosen if, m Gifford apiiarenily tup* 
the Acts writer wm speaking of the province of Oalttia, 

A« tmtetm the puri'Kme and result of the journey, llie mk 
lienee of Arts at Imul cl«rly on the Hide of the writers of 
this ^ofiil g»u|i. The Acts narrative nays nothing about 
fiitiiiciittg chiircti« In the region nafned in Indeed the 
which llie whole imsage makes is that the writer 
knew erf no evmigciyng, or at least of no j)w»longed or siicce»* 
ful work, friim llie lime when the miyoiiarks left *Htie 

lilt they arrived at Philippi in oliedieiice to the vision rc- 
cfiv^ mt Triias fv**). P'ortrfdden to speak the word in Asia, 
lurarf from lilliyiik, iiastlng by My«a, only when th^ 



reach Troas do they find a way open to them. Certainly the 
author would scarcely have described the journey through the 
Phrygian and Galatian country in the brief language of vv.‘- 
if he had known that at this time Paul founded a group of 
churches. This does not prove that no churches were founded, 
but it raises the question whether Zahn is not right in locating 
the journey much as Moff. Sief. and Schm. <la, hut in holding 
that no churches were founded. Before deciding this question, 
however, the evidence of Acts i8” he considered. 

This sentence reads: r^v Va\a.Tm})i> 

Kal ^pvyiav, ffrripC^tav rdvra^ rout paSTfTtk. 

Advocates of the North-Galatian theory generally intert»rct 
the phrase r^e FaXartK^e Kal ^pi’y/av as referring to 

the same territory called in i6* r^e <l>pirylae koI VaXaritiiiv 
ascribing the difference in order to the different tiirec ■ 
tion of approach, and looking uiK»n the i:onlirmation of the dis- 
ciples as evidence that on the journey menfione*! in ift* the 
apostle founded churchc.s. It Ik* fjuestioned whether 
either of these assumption.s is sound. There is, ijidrwl, a j>re* 
sumption in favour of the view that two phrases emjiloying 
exactly the .same term.s (though in different onlerj and stand 
ing in the same author, use the individual term* in the same 

it wiifewt III# tmt wi#ii It 

iilkte a»il #isi lit# 5 # 4 %mi 




that ^pvyiap is a noun. FaXartfc^j/ is, of course, clearly here, 
as in i6\ an adjective. The unity indicated by the single 
article is presumably that of the journey only. 

Where, then, are these two regions which were traversed in this one 
journey? V.** names Antioch of Syria as the point of departure, 
C!hap. 19* names Ephesus as the point of arrival. Between these two 
extremes, Paul has passed through the Galatian country and Phrygia. 
Whether “the upper country** (d:v(*)T®pix(3t pipn) referred to in 19^ is 
the «me as the Galatian region and Phrygia, being referred to here 
resumptively, or the territory between Phrygia and Ephesus, is not 
wholly certain, nor particularly important for our present purpose. 
It is generally and probably rightly understood of the highlands of 
Asia in contrast with the coast plain. It is evident that the writer 
has not given a complete itinerary, but has only mentioned some 
iwints In which he was specially interested. If, as on his previous 
journey, Paul went entirely by land* he must have passed through the 
Syrian Gates and northern Syria. Thence he might, indeed, as Schm. 
iuggests, have gam north through Cappadocia. But Schm.*8 reason 
for this route, that if he had gone through (!llicia the narrative would 
have spoken of confirming the churches in that region, m not convinc- 
ing, It is ceriidnly as probable* If not more so, that his route lay 
through C!IIIck m to as Tanma, thence through the Cilidan Cktes to 
the |wlnt at which the roads branch, one arm going westward to 
Lycaonia, anci the other northward through Cappadoda. 

From this |»olnt three routes are iwmlbk. He may have taken the 
norlliern r«:yi to l‘avium, and thence westward through Ant'yra. This 
U the route for which Ltfl.’s theory that he had on the previous journey 
founiliti rliurdtes in these dtles wouhl natuKdly call Emerging from 
the fiakiLiii country he would enme Into Phrygia and so through the 
fiMiiifilains of the rwlern part of the provinc'e of Ask to Eph«us. 

Clii tilt Ollier hand, he might have left the great western ro^l soon 
after pawing through the Citickn Gates and travelling tfu Tyana and 
the rimil of toke tktta (or fimsihly ms Ironiwm) have coine to 
ftminm iii tlit wmimn imt of old Galatk and so on throtigh Phiygla 
III Eplieiiis. Siif h a roule could hardly have l«ii dirlat«l iolely by 
m tlwire to reach Ephwus, dnee it wm to from Wng the or 

0mm%, la lliis ease we may with Mrdf. iup|K»e that “ the 
Wf in the rliiirchf?i founded on the previotw Journey* or with 
Xaliit Ihai he had tfiiimW no church uml “alt the dlrti'lplei” «« the 
W’Al|rf«l C%rktliin:4 In these reghins. In etlher emm 

It alfl Ckittk. bill the fmn pa»(w| ihrongh h tlie «f rwe w«t©fii 
|Mft only. k the enstwnn imrl tif A:da. 

SttI ititt h« may have the route w«tw»rd tlrottih 



Derbe, Lystra/Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, and thence on directly 
westward to Ephesus. The last explanation makes the langur cover 
a larger part of the country actually pas-sed through than either of the 
others. It is, however, an objection to it that it supposes I’aXarixtiv 
to be used in a different sense from any that can rnaaonahly 1 k! attai;hed 
to it in i6‘, taking PaXaTtaiiv xfSpw in a political sense, which is oon- 
trary to the usual practice of the Acts author and to the u;tc of ^puyiav 
which he immediately joined with it. 

It is against any view that finds in Acf.s t{<« a second vwit 
to the Galatian churches supposed to have been founder! on 
the second journey (Acts i6‘) that while the Acts author defi- 
nitely speaks of the churches founded in sotitliern Galatia and 
elsewhere (14*^ 15" 16*) here he speaks only of disciples (hut 
cf. also 14*). This, together with the absence of any mention 
of the founding of churches in 16*® , favours the view of /Aim 
that while there were scatteretl di.stuples in thi.H region (found 
or made on his previous journey) there were nr» churches. This 
evidence couid, indeed, be set susidc if there were .strong 
ing reasons. But the contrary is tlie case. All forms of the 
North-Galatian view with its hy{K>thesiH of churches in ohl 
Galatia lalamr under the disadvantage that its sole evhleiire 
for the existence of any churches in northern Galatia is fmind 
in two pa.s8ages, l>oth somewhat dbicure, in a writer who, 
though doubtless in general trustworthy, Is not always ami- 
rate. To create on the of such evidence a group of 
churches of Galatia, when we already have jwrfectly clear evi 
dence of another group of churches which could lx? j*wj»rty 
80 called, and which fulfil all the conditions nerewary to be 
met by the term m used by Paul, i» of more than iloubllul 

It may he oblected to Zahn'» view that it k etrenac that tiw imm 
raXomx^v in Act* should refer to an eolhrriy diinrent r^iioa trnit 
that to wt^ti Paul refers In hk term Pe Wte, Hut it i» to he 'wuinx^ 
that laike has a|i{)«n?ntly taken no pain* to conform hi* me t*l *?*>• 
paphkaj ttrw to tiM of Paul, and that tn {Mtlknlaf h« givo* 
evMtsnee d tatmding to fnmMi Ik* hiw^kgtwuiid of ite? lo ihc: 
Cakttona, new wring the wwii "rlMirdi'’ Iwcmwiec.ltonwilh 
On the other hand, the amdogy of rirndar fmm* the pfwrilulHy 

if not the piohahility that whin ttM nafne PthmsiM mm «wt««d»d to 



cover the Lycaonian, Pisidian, and Phrygian territory a new name, 
should have been coined to describe old Galatia. See 

above, p. xjcviii. 

It may also be said against Zahn’s view that it is incredible that 
Paul on his way to visit scattered disciples in western ethnographic 
Galatia should by southern Galatia without visiting the churches 
of that region; to which it may be answered that a motive similar to 
that ascribed to Paul in Acts 20“, together with a desire to foster the 
Christian movement represented by scattered disciples in the Gala- 
Uan country, may have hd him to avoid the cities of southern Galatia. 
Of course it is also possible that the cities of southern Galatia were 
visited at this time, but that, a.s the Acts writer says nothing about 
the churches of Syria and Cilicia, though Paul must have passed 
through thesic regions, he for some unknown reason ignores the cities 
<A southern Galatia though this journey included them. The omis- 
don of the second group is no more strange than that of the first. 

We conclude, therefore, that so far as concern.s Acts i6*** 
and j 8® the interpretation which best satisfies all the evidence 
is that which supposes that the journey of Acts i6* ran a little 
fast of north from Antioch, possibly passiing around the Sul- 
tan D^h and through Amorion and Pcssinus, and that it was 
undertaken not for evangelisation but as a mean.s of reaching 
some other territory in which the apostle expected to work, 
perhaps Bithynia. The {joint at which they were xotA t^v 
M vaiap would l»e not Nakoleia or Kotiaion, but some {joint 
further cast, {H*rhaps Pessinus it.self. Why this route was 
chosen rather Ilian the a{>parcntly more direct route through 
Nakoleia and l)<»ryIaion must be a matter wholly of conjec- 
ture. At Pewdnus, of course, might have occurred the preach- 
ing of sicknias (Gal. 4‘*), and the consequent founding 

of the Galatian churchoi. But there is no suggestion of this 
in the Acts narrative, and no presumption in favour of it. For 
the journey of Act* 18^ there is no more probable route tlmti 
that through the Cidlian Gates and efa Tyana and Lake Tatta. 

3. &»me minor con-sideraiions derived from Paul’s Epistles, 

It remains to consider certain items of evidence that have in 
IhemwitvM tittle we^ht, but wbkh have filled a more or to 
pNmimmt place In previmja discussioas of the probto. 


a. The epistle represents the people addr^s^ as warmheart^t Ii»- 
pulsivc, and fickle. These characteristics have been |>0intrf to m 
indicating their Gallic blood, and hence aa tending to show that the 
churches were in northern Galatia. But warmhearteiinw and fickle- 
ness seem to have been equally characteristic of the Lyc&onian peoplt 
(with Acts i4»-« cf. Acts i4*»‘ »«), amd the evidence of the letter k too 
general in character to enable us to draw any conchwlon wlialevcr 
from this evidence. 

b. It has be«i said to be improbable that the scene Beter 

and Paul depicted in Gal. a”-** occurr«i before the jirroind mkiloiiary 
journey, since in that case Paul must have propOM^I to to 

accompany him on another journey after he had found him unfit able 
on an important point But if this Inddral of (M. a** « is put aftor 
the second missionary journey, then Galatians, wfice It narrates lh« 
incident, must also itself be later than the second mlwlomry Iniirnry. 
But if It was wntten on the third journey, since fial 4** itnpllet that 
Fad had visited the Gdttians but twice, thesr CkktiAii,i t: 4 n mil tm 

' those of southern Gdatia, because o» his third mmhmxf loiimef 
he visited them for the third time. Ilrncr, it h infrrn^i, wf niiiAt 
place this incident after the second jfuirney, the leltef m tli« thltd 
journey, and the churrhf!i In northern (klatk. In reply it li I# tif 
said that, aside from the inde«*klve rharacler of the rvliktur# of 
th «p^Tt{wv (see on 4^*), this argument ovrrlookt three fwi!»iWtitl« 
that can not k Ignored: (a) that the incklenl of Gal 0 ** iiiAy have 
deterred Barrmltas from acTeptlng Patir^ profaiwil fallwf than fkiil 
from making It; (b) that even if the ImAlint ormrw^l after Itif 
Journey, the tetter may still have btsen wrlllfti Wofe lie f hlfd 
vk., at Antioch Iretween the wroml and thiwl Jourmyyt* ind ju^l aftet 
the Antioch Indctenl; (r) limt the Ihlnt hmrtiey may wit have iticiwtefi 
a visit to the churches of mmthem Galatk* atwl kmm ihf^ tetter, w?fi 
if wrilten m the latter |»rt of that Jounwy, iwy have lieeii pmmM 
by only two vliiti to the thurrhea of ^uthero Cklitk, 

c. InMinurli as PartmlM wm with tktil on hk fini 

jouniey when the rhurchw of wilhtrn Cktelk were litil did 

not accompany him on his i^ond j*»tiiwy, and. hrai't^ wiiiil4 i»f li« 
known liermnally to the Hoilh 4 tektl« rhtitrhi^* If iheie ww m h 
the tmt that the Itittr nwnltens him wlthoiii ## fclrmifwA^ 

tioft li in favour the Sowlh^Gdaltefi i*il tl« 

fact can imt ^ m ilOMii . Tit telt#i md 

that thi Imtw him In ^ tiff niilt Iipiw Ito 
by mm i be lirf mm bw» ihtm. 

d* fit ^ Gd. a* IImi Paul to ftel4 to lift iwtsii# 

broi^lt upo Mm in ^thal itei Itulh mighs 

^ti».w li i^teitood hy It i^y ilai ii ti« fkm 



of tht conference in Jerusalem he had already preached the gospel to 
the Galatians, hence that they were South-Galatians. But the “you" 
of this passage may mean the Gentiles in general, not the Galatians 
in particular. 

e. The people of Lystra took Paul and Barnabas for gods (Acts 
Paul says the Galatians received him as an angel of God (Gal. 4^<). 
But the parallel is not close enough to prove anything more than that 
the Galatians and Lycaonians were both warmhearted, impulsive 


f. The allusion m Gal. to the charge that Paul still preached dr- 
cumcisiofi seems an echo of the use made among the Galatians of Hs 
clrnimvimon of Timothy. Now, as Timothy was a South-Galatian, 
It u particularly pratjalile that the judaisers would use this fact against 
him In iKHithem Galatia. True, but the story might easily be told in 
northern C»alatia, though the event occurred in southern Galatia. 

g. The “marks of the I^rd Jesus,” (»al. 6*^ have been interpreted 
to refer to the scemrging at Philippi, and the inference has been drawn 
that the letter was written on the second missionary journey, and that 
accoffllngly the churches were in southern Galatia, since at this time 
he had ncil yet been twice (4*®) in northern Galatia. But it is equally 
pkusibk (and ectually Inconclusive; r/. b alcove) to refer these marks 
to the ei|>erieni^ referred to in i Cor. rs*^ or 2 Cor. i», and to argue 
tfial the letter must Irlong to the third missionary journey and that the 
rhurrhes could not be In southern Galatia, since when Paul wm at 
Kphwui he had on the South-Galatian theory been In southern Galatk 
three tlmwi, 

h. It h ?mld that Paul would not have gone into northern Galatia, 
where Greek r«^mparailvely unknown* Jerome does, Ind^, 
Irntify llial the Chdlk* language wm still t|>oken In this region three 

Greek m llie lofiiniiifi ianguage of the Orient, and the use of Greek in 
liiri*:ripiloiw of Aaryta belonging hi the time of Tiberius (Boeckh, 



In view of all the extant evidence we conclude that the bal- 
ance of probability is in favour of the South-Galatian view. 
The North-Galatian theory in the form advocated by Sief. 
Schm. and Moff. is not impossible. If in place of the incom- 
plete and obscure, possibly inaccurate, language of Acts 1 6* 
and 18” we had clear and definite evidence, tlii.s eviiience might 
prove the existence of North-Galatian churches foundeil by 
Paul before the writing of this letter. If so, this would, as 
indicated above, in turn prove that Paul's letter was written 
to them. But the evidence as it stands is not sufTidcnt to 
bear the weight of theory which this hypothesis involves, in 
eluding, as it does, the very existence of churches of whose 
existence we have no direct or definite evidence. On the l»a«is 
of the existing evidence the most proliablc view is that of 
Zahn, viz., that on his second missionary journey Paul passed 
through the western exlgc of old Galatia, there finding or mak • 
ing a few disciples, but founding no churches; and that his 
letter to the churches of Galatia was written not to the (Jala- 
tians of this region, but to the churches of Derlie, l.ystra, 
Iconium, and Pisidmn Antiwh. 



narrative places the conference “no little time” after the 
return of Paul and Barnabas to Antioch from their first mis- 
sionary journey. We thus have a double dating of the event, 
that of Gal. a'-, which locates it from fourteen to seventeen 
years after the conversion of Paul and that of the Acts narra- 
tive, which places it between the apostle’s first and second 
missionary journe3rs. 

. 3. The visit of Peter to Antioch narrated in 2”-*^ presumably 
followed the conference in Jerusalem, and is naturally assigned 
to the period of Paul’s stay in Antioch referred to in Acts 15’*. 
Thus the earliest possible date for the writing of the letter is 
the latter portion of that period. 

4. The phrase rb irp^repop in Gal. 4** has often been appealed 
to $s decisive evidence that before writing this letter Paul had 
made two evangelistic journeys into Galatia. Taken alone the 
words do not seem with certainty to prove this (see note on 
rh TTpdTtpov, pp. 339 ff.). But when the evidence of 4“> *« (q. a; 
cf. I*, also) that Paul had communicated with the Galatians 
betwttsn the orig^l preaching of the gospel to them (4*^) and 
the writing of the letter is taken into account, the simplest 
explanation of all the data is that Paul had made two vi^ts to 
GiUaUa before writing the letter. On this supposition the let- 
ter must have ten written not only after the visit of Peter to 
Antioch (Acts is*‘) but after the journey of Acts Time 

must also l>e allowed for the apostle to have gone some dis- 
tance from Galatia, for the visit of the judaising misdonaries, 
for such siiam as thi^ had achieved in their effort to win the 
Galatiani to their conception of the way of salvation, and for 

ctMlwi under “Occasion and Purp<»e” below. As thae con- 
ditions could scarcely have been ful^led before the arrival 



written at no long time after the conversion of the Galatians, 
but furnishes no ground of choice among dates which arc on 
other grounds possible. See on i 

6, If within the period of the ai>ostle’.s life after Acts iS' we 

seek to determine a more definite date, some weight must he 
given to such evidence as the relation lietween Galatians and 
Romans. The latter, presenting calmly and deliberately views 
similar in substance to which the former expreHi4e.s with 
the heat of controversy, was probably written after Galatians. 
Of somewhat similar character is the relation between ( jalatians 
and I and 2 Corinthians. The .situation reflectwl in the latter, 
showing the representatives of the judaistic ten«ifn« y opfjosing 
Paul’s work in Ad|aia, probably arose after the situation de- 
scribed in Galatians was created in Galatia, the jtidaiser.s prr 
sumably moving westward in their attack u{wn Paul's w»»rk. 
But inasmuch a.s the letter was iimniiVstly written while the 
situation that arose in Galatia was still acute, atul not long 
after the vi.sit of the judaiisers, it is most prolutbly f«» Iw assigneil 
to a perkal before the coming of the jtidai ters to ( Viriiiih; iti 
other words, not later than the early jMirt of the ajHntle’s two 
years and three months in Kphesus (Acts Yt'* this 

argument can not l»« strongly pressrsl. The ini^wwaries 
Galatia and Achala were m»t at alt certainly the iiante jw-riMMis, 
and the delation to Corinth may have gone there More the 
other groufj arrivetl in Galatk. 

7. Some conskleration is ato due to the fact tltai the Iritrr > 

of the apwtlc taken together sIk>w that his omirowisy with 
his legaiisUc op^sments made a deejj impr»Msw«i on hi* think’ 
ing and, for some yws at least, filled a laige pla»* iit his 
diought*. From i (’orinthlatw to f'oliwtdan-s every letter «»h»»wn 
at test some marks of this controversy, white of several cd 
them It Is th* cential theme. But in t ami » wr 

find no reference whatever to iWs matter, this fii*t citatrs a 
wtrin pfoh&yMiy that CteJtetians was not written till ali« 
I and 3 Thwaloniam. But the force «d thte arfutrtetd iit 
l$t§efy dnifosmd by the tect that the tetters to the 

niatis mutt have i>m rrrilten in any cate after the coidereitce 


at Jerusalem, and, therefore, after the judaistic controversy had 
come to fill a large place in the apostle’s thought. 

But if, as is on the whole probable, Galatians was written 
after the arrival at Corinth on his second missionary journey, 
and before Romans on his third missionary journey, there are 
several places and times at which it may have been written, of 
which four are perhaps most worthy of consideration. If it 
was written to the churches of southern Galatia it may date 
from (i) Corinth in the period of Acts and either before 
or after the writing of i Thessalonians, (2) Antioch in the 
peritKl of Acts 18®“' (3) Ephesus in the period covered by 

Acts, chap. 19, or (4) Macedonia or Achaia in the period cov- 
ered by Acts 20*-*. 

Mynster (Ehdaiung in den Brief an die GalaUr, in KUinere Schriften, 
1825), Zahn (Eitdeilung in d. N. TJ, pp. 139-142, E. T. pp. 193 
cap. 196-199), Bacon (introduction to the N. T., p. 38), and RendaU 
(Expositor, i^r. IV, vol. IX; Exp. Grk. Test., vol III, p. 146) aa- 
dgn it to Corinth before the writing of i Thessalonians, thus making 
It the first of all the aijostle’s letters. Renan (St. Paul, p. 313) and 
Ramsay (St. Paul the Traodler, pp. 189 ff.'. Commentary, pp. 242 Jf.) 
date it from Andoch in the period of Acts t8*», while Askwidi (Epistle 
to the Galatians, chaps. VII, VIII) dates it from Macedonia after 
2 Corinthians. 

In favour of Antioch in the period of Acts 18“ as against Cor- 
inth on the second missionary journey, it is to be said that 
information concerning affairs in Galatia (the efforts of the 
judaisers and their success with the Galatians) would more 
easBy r^tch the aijostlc in Antioch of Syria than in Mawdbnia 
or Achida. It has been suggest^l by Ram. (JCraedler, 
pp. 189 jf.) that the letter gives evidence tWt the apostle had 
full information of the state of affairs such as would not mily 
have been obtained by a letter, and implies, therefore, that he 
had reedvoi knowldige by a personal messenger. As such 
nief»enger no one would be more probable than Timothy, Mm- 
self a Galatian. But Timothy was with Paul at Corinth for 
8t»ne time, as i and 3 Thessalonians show. Only then, towuds 
thus latte ftet of the Corinthian rtedboce, coidd he have Mt 



failed to achieve by his letter. If, indeed, Acts i8“ can be so 
interpreted as to imply a journey through southern Galatia, then 
the expression “confirming all the disciples” would appropri- 
ately describe the purpose and effect of a visit following the 
letter, assumed to be successful, but in itself furnishes no strong 
evidence that the letter had been written. 

The case for Antioch is, therefore, not very strong, and as 
against Ephesus on the third missionary journey, it is even 
less so than against Corinth on the second. Nor can 
TO Tpdrepop (4»») be urged against Ephesus on the ground 
that at that time Paul would have been in Galatia three times, 
for, as shown above, it is not certain or even probable that the 
journey of Acts 18” included the churches of Galatia. If there 
is any weight in Ram.’s argument respecting the probability of 
Timothy bringing the apostle personal information, this applies 
almost equally well to Eph^us as the place of writing. For if 
Paul did not visit the churches of southern Galatia in the jour- 
ney of Acts 18“ he may very well have sent Timothy by that 
route, and have received Timothy’s report at Ephesus. 

The arguments by which Askwith supports his contention 
in favour of Macedonia on the third missionary journey axe 
not ail equally forcible, but there is no strong counter argu- 
ment, and this location of the letter very interestingly accounts 
for the language of Gal. • and its parallelism with 2 Cor. 9*. 
Yet neither is this a decisive or strong argument for his view. 

Apparently, therefore, we must remain contented without 
any strong reason for deciding whether the letter, if destined 
for the churches of southern Galatia, was written in the latter 
part of the apostle’s stay at Corinth on his second mteionary 
Journey, or at Antioch tetween the second and third journ^, 
or at Ephesus on the third journey, or still later on this jour- 
ney, In Mac^onia or Achata. If there is any balance of prob- 
ability it KMos to be in favour of Ephesus. 

On the supptsitioii that the letter was written to churches In northern 
Oalatia founded on the second missioRary Journey (Acts x&*), and 
duUt the eeUlmce of the e^tle indicates that he bad vidted them a 


ten after Acts On the other hand, his jounieys aftrr leavlni 
Corinth at the end of his third missionary journey (Ac‘t?i ia^) are and 
as to make the writing of the letter after this latter time a 

is also the relation of Galatians to Romans. As hrtwmi Efthrsii^ iiiii 
Macedonia, or between either of these and Achaia, there k litllr groitiw 
for choice. The argument of Ltft. that it must be pbitcil afirr ih 
Corinthian letters because of its dose affinity to Eomatin of liltl 
weight, especially in view of the fat;t that Romani wan probably i 
drcular letter and may have lieen comiionrd mmt iiioiillw Ih 

Roman copy was sent from Corinth. 

Continental scholars who hold the NortlV'CiaLitian 
plac:e the letter at Ephesus. So Mey. Wx Sirf. ikulel, Strlii. SItiti 
larly Holtemann pliua^s it on the jotirnry to Eplimni, i»r altf 
the arrival there, and Jiilirher ciuring the Kfiliriisi Iiiii wliil 

on a mMicmary journey out from that city. Con v Ware Iffiwioii 

md after them Lift., argue for C'orinth on the mum joiirney, m 
Salmon. On the? whole, there k no morr probahk tkte for ih« 
than Ephesus on the third missionary jotiniey, wtirllief It mm wtillr 
to northern or southern Cklatia. 

lake, iiadm Epi$Un 0/ SL PauL pp. 'm #♦ iiteutlfylni fhe vid 
to Jerumkm of Gal. »*•»* with that, of Arts, rlwfei. ii and 1?, an 
denying that the xh of 40 Implies tw«'i vkli.i lo Gaklk* 

the writlr^ of the letter before the i'lmiidl M fefn^lriii feroidril 1 
Ack, chap. ti. In tlik he agreri nubit.iniiallv with ilUklnm, 

pp. md Round (Th iP^ik a?fe fm\r 0 n 

tlte idenilfimlkifi of the vkli of Gal. ,1* with ihat i 4 ArM mil 
Etm. and Wdur. Rut agalnsf ilik hlrnilicitififf the fnfanlii 
t«i« of in are it not ile»;i 4 ve evhlfittw 

#rf Im.h while thit matiy fadnla «if atfeement liriwfen f ki i» 
chap. 15, ffinsiltiite on Iht whnk det'klve whlewe for tlif ttlrtfii* 
of lh»t %m to the mmw See ilefictei mm, p, 11 

ll k iwlffcl true tlial It Ii lo iii|i|iow^ ilwl Ik? I 

chap. IS, k III all a^enratr il it rrlw f.4i ilie 1 

Gd. bill il Is more potliahle that Ihk h I 

itt slat«tt»l of the tmnm of the agiwmwiG or In l^«i 1 

thwi llai, il the ImWnst of hm m li 

occi^i iht tWi «l Ack 1 1*** atnl ih# It #•* 

wn at that tlmf, ihn iinwlfon wi^ ii»l 1 

•wl m ili il« fofwf mm ottnnfd mmm %m |«i» tmm. 

**Chinwb^** In mi#* p, |||^ ^ 

Rm. 1 ^. t'm£4, hm Ikil tl» vWt *i rnw ii» AmM Hk 

aoti niti iiai irf tmmm ito 

*tm^m M Gd, j» irili ite mmMm% 



of Acts TS». Ram. Traveller^ pp. isS Com. pp. 304/., making 
Gal. refer to the visit narrated in Acts leaves Gal. in 
the position in relation to 2*”^® in which it stands in Galatians. As indi- 
cated above he dates the letter in the period of Acts The result in 
both cases is, without affecting the date of the letter, to place the An- 
tioch incident at a longer interval before the writing of it than the more 
common view, which identifies Gal. 2^ with Acts 15* and leaves the 
order of GaL chap. 2 undisturbed. Zahn, agreeing with Ram. in 
identifying GaL 2^ with Acts ii»« and with Turner in placing GaL 
before puts the Antioch incident stiU further back, even before 
FauFs first missionary journey, but still puts the writing of the letter 
as Ram. does, after Acts, chap. 15, viz., at Corinth, in the period of 
Acts i8*L There is little or nothing to be said against the date to 
which these writers assign the letter, but quite as little to be said in 
favour of the position to which they assign the Antioch incident. 
The transposition of the parts of GaL chap. 2, to which Turner and 
Zahn r^rt, is indeed not explicitly excluded by an i%€ixa at the 
beginning of but neither is there anything to support it in the 

language of the passage, while it does distinct violence to the psycho- 
logical probabilities of the situation. As is fjointed out in detail in 
the of the passage, the qu^tion which m:mt at Antioch is 

distinctly different from that which was discussed at Jerusalem, but 
one to which the ignoring of ultimate issues which characterised the 
Jerusalem conference, and the compromise in which it issued, was 
almost certain to give rise. The position, moreover, which Paul was 
driven to take at Antioch was definitely in advance of that which 
he temk at Jerusalem, involving a virtual repudiation not of one statute 
of the law, but of nil, and this not only for the Gentiles, but in principle 
for the Jews. The reversal of the order in which he has narrate the 
events ii, therefore, an unwarranted violence to the rettord. It may, 
Indeed, not unreasonably be said that the Antioch Incident could 
^arccly have hapfjened after the events of Acts, chap. 15, as narrat«i 
in that pwage; for the question that apparently arose m a new l»ue 
at AiitlirM’h is dready settletl In decisions recorded In Acts, chap. iS* 
But Ift view of III! the evidence, the solution of this difficulty ndfcher 
In denying the general Identity of the event of GaL with that of 
Acli, chap. fSi tmt In putting Acts, chap. t% after GaL hut In 

tfw vWii I0 Galmik Implied in of Gal. 4** ire the out* 



first misfflionary journey, on which is based the conclusion that th 
letter was written before the second missionary journey, is diwusse 
on p. 241. McGiffert’s argument that if Paul had vlsiletl the Cialatia 
churches since the conference of Acts, chap, is* he would have ha 
no occasion to give them the full account of it in Gal. a'-**, m of somi 
thing of which they had not heard before, ignores the hint of the ictti 
(i'4’*) that he had already discussed the matter with them, an 
the possibility, not to say probability, that the acute situation whir 
existed when he wrote the letter called for a fresh statement of Ih 
matter, and probably a fuller one than he had prevbusly felt to h 

The reduction of the aliovc statemettt*!, which are npnsm 
in terms of periods of the apo.stle's life, to calendar rlafes in 
volves the whole problem of the chronology of the aytewUe* 
life. Without entering at length into this finesti»»n, which lie 
outside the scofte of this Introduction, it may Hufltce to jMtin 
out that if, as seems to Ite provctl by an In script wm found ai 
Delphi (.see Repari c/ the Pakstifie Kxplmtthm Fund, April 
1908; Delssmann, St. Paul, Apiwndi* II; Amerkm Jmeml 0, 
Tkedogy, XXI aw), (tallio tiecame prm'tm.sul of Arhaht in th« 
summer of 51 a, n., we arrive at 50 or jji as the iktc for ih< 
writing of Galatians in case it was written at C!orinih on ih* 



The argument for the later date (34 or 35) based on i Cor. falls 
to the ground with the recognition of the fact that the presence of the 
ethnarch of Aretas in Damascus does not imply that Damascus was in 
the dominion of Aretas. See on I'K 


It is fortunate for the interpreter of the letter to the Gala- 
tians that while the location of the churches is in dispute and 
the time and place of writing can be determined, if at all, only 
by a balance of probabilities resting on indirect evidence, the 
question for whose answer these matters are of chief importance, 
can be decided with a good degree of certainty and on indepen- 
dent grounds. The previous relations of the writer and his 
readers, the circumstances that led to the writing of the letter, 
the purpose for which it was written, these appear with great 
clearness in the letter itself. 

The Galatians to whom the letter was written were Gentile 
Christians, converted from heathenism (4*), evidently under 
the preaching of Paul (i*' * 4**; c/. 3*“ ). Paul’s first preach- 
ing to them was occarioned by illness on his part (4**) ; intend- 
ing to go in some other direction, he was led by illness to go 
to Galatia, or being on his way through Galatia and not intend- 
ing to tarry there, he was led to do so by illness. He pro- 
claimed to them Jesus Christ and him crucified, preaching that 
men could through faith in Jesus the Christ escape from the 
present evil age and attain the approval of God apart from 
works of law (3*- •). He imposed on his converts no Jewish 
ordinances, but taught a purely spiritual Christianity ($*■* 
^••11 j*. 'Pile Galatians received him and his gospel with 

enthusiasm (4** “). Th^ were Imptised (3’'} and received the 
j^t of the Holy Spirit, miracles wrought among them giving 
evidence of hb presence (3* *)- Tliat Paul visited them a sec- 
Wfid time Is made practolly certain by the evidence of i" 4«- 
(f.v.). Pwsibly before the second- visit there hati been fals^ 
teachers among them (i»), but If so the defection hatl not been 
sorloui (i* 5’). More recently, k>wever, a serious attempt had 

* tm Iwlmi, Mmmti mi Lmm nj a# AfmMe 4ft, p». tatf. 



been made to draw them away from the gospel as Paul had 
preached it to them (i^ 5“). This new doctrine opposed to 
Paul’s was of a judaistic and legalistic type. Its advocates 
evidently endeavoured to win the Galatians to it by appealing 
to the promises to Abraham and his seed recorded in the Old 
Testament. Though the letter makes no definite quotation 
from the language of these teachers it Is easily evident fr<»m 
the counter argument of the aiwstle in chapters 3 and 4 that 
they had taught the Galatians either that salvation was p««Hi< 
ble only to those who were, by blood or adoption, chiklren of 
Abraham, or that the highest privileges lielongcti only to these. 
See especially 3^- ”• 4**-’*. They ha<l laid chief stress ujKin 

circumcision, this being the initiatory rite by which a Gentile 
was adopted into the family of Abraham. Though they Ivad 
cautionsly abstained from endeavouring to imprwe upon the 
Galatians the whole law, or from {wlnting out that this 
was logically involved in what they denmndctl (%*), they had 
induced them to adopt the Jewish feasts and fasts (4**). 

To these doctrinal dements of the controversy, ihemacivt* 

m I i I * I k\ Uli 1 1 Vili W I tim 

was added a personal element still ntorc conducive to eroliilter* 



Twelve, a man who knew nothing of Christianity except what 
he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a per- 
verted form. This appears from the nature of Paul’s defence 
of his independent authority as an apostle in the first two chap- 
ters of the letter, and indicates that with their theory of a lim- 
ited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the 
apostolic commission must proceed from the circle of the origi- 
nal Twelve. See detached note on ’AwdcToXos, pp. 363 jff. 

This double attack of the judaisers upon the apostle and his 
doctrine and the attempt to convert the Galatians to their 
view was upon the point of succeeding when Paul learned of 
the state of affairs. The Galatians were already giving up the 
gospel which Paul had taught them (i*); he feared that his 
labour on them was wasted (4") ; yet in a hopeful moment he 
was confident in the Lord that they would not be carried 
away (5”). 

Such is the situation that gave rise to the letter. In a sajse 
Paul had a double purpose, partly to defend himself, partly to 
defend his gospel, but only in a sense. The defence of himself 
wa.s forced on the aix»stle by the relation in which the question 
of his ajwstleship stood to the truth of his gospel. Considerable 
space is necessarily <lcvotcd in the first third of the letter to 
the fiersonal matter, since it wa.s of little use for the apostle 
to argue, and of no use to affirm, what constituted the true 
gospel, while, his readers doubted his claim to be an authorised 
expounder of the gosjjd. Towards the end he carefully guards 
his dcK'frine from certain sj>ecious but false and mischievous 
inferences from it and touches upon a few other minor 

matters. But the central purpose of the letter is to arrest the 
pK^ress of the judaising projmganda with its perverted gospel 
of mijvatinn through works of law, which the Galatians were on 
the very |>oint of accepting, and to win them back to faith in 
Jmm Christ apart from works of law, the gospel which Paul 
himself had taught them. 

Inddeitialiy the letter affords its most important information 
whkh we mi not suppose to have been any part of the apostle'* 
pbut to tiMsmit to u% but which is not on that account the te 



valuable. No other letter contains so full and objective a 
piece of autobiography as that which he has given us in the 
first two chapters of this letter. Informing as are i and a 
Corinthians, i Thessalonians and Philippians, these chapters 
are even more so. 

Not less valuable is the contribution of the letter to the his- 
tory of the apostolic age. It carric.s us into the very heart of 
the controversy between the narrow, judaistic conception of 
the gospel, and that more enlightened, broader view of which 
Paul was the chief champion in the first age of the church. 
The story is told, indeed, in fiart in Acts, but as it was conceived 
years after the event; in the letter we have not m much an 
account of the controversy as a voire out of the conflict itself. 
The information is first-hand; the colours have the freshnesji 
and of nature. Not important for u» to-day 
is the testimony which the letter hears to the limit.s of that 
controversy. A just interpretation of the second chapter shows 
most clearly not that Peter anrl Paul were in sharji antagonism 
to one another, representatives of opfxwing factions, hut that, 
while they did not altogether agna; in their conrepfiona *»f reli- 



were fundamental (see below, § V) and the discussion of them 
was no calm academic debate, but a veritable contest for large 
stakes between men of intense conviction and deep feeling. 
Nor was it significant for Galatia and Corinth and Jerusalem 
only, nor for that age alone. Had no one arisen in that age 
to espouse the view for which Paul contended, or had the con- 
troversy issued in a victory for the judaistic party, the whole 
history of Christianity must have been different from what it 
has been. Christianity would have been only a sect of Juda- 
ism, and as .such would probably have been of relatively little 
force in the history of the world, or would even have been lost 
altogether, becoming'' reabsorbed into the community from 
which it came. The letter to the Galatians is a first-hand 
document from the heart of one of the most significant contro- 
veraes in the history of religion. 


The above statement of the occasion of the letter is sufficient 
to show that the controversy in which it played a part had to 
do with certain questions which were of fundamental impor- 
tance for early Christianity. These questions did not first 
come to the surface in Galatia, but neither did they become 
prominent at the beginning of Paul’s career, nor were they all 
stated and discussed with equal explicitness. The one which 
came most clearly into the foreground and was probably also 
the first to be dented was whether Gentiles who, attracted by 
the message of the gospel, were disposed to accept it must be 
circumcised in order to be recognised as members of the Chris- 
tian community and to participate in the salvation which the 
g08{>e! brought to those who received it. To tMs quwtion 
Gal. 3‘** shows dearly that Paul had, before b^inning his 
evangelistic work in Gdatia, returned a definitely ne^dve 
answer. This epistle furnishes evidence which, though not 
explidt In its indivklual items, is on the whole suffident to 
show that this position of the apostic was not at first strongly 
of^poied by the Jerusalem church i$et i** and notes thereon). 
Tlw statement of Gal. ** that what the churchw of Judba 



heard of Paul’s ■work in Syria and Cilicia they glorifietl fitod in 
him, taken with the evidence that Paul’s convictions about 
the relation of his gospel to the Gentiles were formed very 
g2Lr|y in his career as a Christian, makes it probable, that there 
was at first no strong sentiment in the Jerusalem church against 
recognising Gentiles who accqitcd the gos[Kl message as mem- 
bers of the new fellowship and community. That presently, 
however, there arose a conflict of opinion on the subject was 
apparently due to two causes. On the one haml. there were 
added to the Christian community in Juda-a irrtain men of 
strongly conservative temlencies who were convinced that 
Christianity ought to he built strictly* on the losis of the 
Abrahamic covenant, and that the ChrtHtiau sc«*t ought to 
differ from other Jewish sects, in jiarticular from the Phari «ric 
sect, only by the addition of the diwtrine of the Misisiah thij» of 
Jesus, and in no case by any su!ilracti«m from the fltwtrines or 
requirements of Uie Old Testament religion as currently inter-' 
preted. On the other luwwl, as the effects t>f the evangelist i» 
activity of Paul betrame more manib^U ami t»ettrr known to 
the church at Jerusalem, the roil extetit awl serious nature of 
his departure from the views and |jraeticeH now beritining cur 
rent in the mother church doubtless Immme more evidefit. As 
a result of these two inftuema^s the question of the obligation of 
the C»entile Christians to lie circumdsetl came to an iwne in the 



doubtless also for Gentiles to eat with the Jews. It is true 
that our only explicit record is an account of what took place 
after Peter came to Antioch. Yet that he was responsible for 
the custom in which he at first participated is contrary to all 
probability. The table-fellowship at Antioch was dearly the 
product of Pauline liberalism, not of Petrine caution or com- 
promise. On the relation of the narrative of Acts, chap. lo, to 
the matter, see pp. ri6 /. 

That the Gentiles with whom Jewish Christians were eating 
were not conforming to the laws of the Old Testament concern- 
ing fotal, and tlmt the table-fellowship of the Jews with Gentiles 
involved violation of the QW Testament law by the Jews, also, 
i.s the dear implication of the whole narrative. It is not, in- 
deed, imptmible that the Jewish legalists in their zeal to “build 
a hedge about the law” had laid down a rule against associa- 
tion of Jews and Gentiles in general (c/. Acts lo**). But that 
in the piwnt case the requirement of the law, of which the 
more strenuous rule, in so far as it was observed or enforced, 
was an expansion by tradition, was distinctly in mind as the 
crux of the controversy is shown by several considerations. In 
the first place Paul sfieaks in Gal. a*® of Peter’s eating with the 
Gentiles, implying that the question at issue was one not only 
of aasodation but of focxl. In the second place, Paul’s inter- 
pretation of Peter’s withdrawal from fellowship with the Gen- 
tiles as an attempt to amijH‘1 the Gentiles to conform to Jewish 
custom (Gal. i“) implies that the fellowship could be resumed 
on condition that the Gentiles observed the Jewish law; which 
obdously would not be the case if those who came from James 

gencml, or even against table-fellowship in particular, without 
reference to whether it involved a disregard of the law of foods. 
In the thirtl place, the aiwstle’s quick transition from the dis- 
cu«ion of the matter of Jews and Gentiles eating together, in 
w. to that of the ol)servatice of Isw iti vv.‘*®>, makes it 
evideni that it was a statute of the law, not a tradition, the 
observance of whkh was at issue. Even the narmtive in Acts, 
chap. IS, tkiugh manifeitly not a wholly correct rq[»rt of what 



took place in Jerusalem and having no direct reference to the 
Antioch incident, nevertheless shows how early the food law 
played a part in the question of the freedom of the Gentiles. 

But if the food on the tables of the Gentiles was not restricted 
to that which the Levitical law j>crmitted, then it is evident, 
first, that the Gentiles had generalised the <iecision resiwcting 
circumcision and concluded that no Jewish statutes were bind- 
ing upon them, or at least had extended the priiiciplc to another 
group of statutes; and, second, what is even more significant, 
that the Jews had acted on the principle that the law which 
was not binding on the Gentiles was not binding on them. 

These two new questions came to issue in the discussion 
between Peter and Paul at Antioch as narrated in j”*-. And 
on this occasion Paul .squarely took the {xjsition that the law 
of foods was not only not binding on Jewish (Christians, hut 
that they must not oltey it under rircumstance* like those at 
Antioch, which made their observance of it a atmimbion of the 
Gcntilc.s to do the sanre. 

By this contention Paul in effect deniwl the authority of 
the Old Testament statutes over either Jews (tr Gentiltsi, at 


be enforced by law; nor ceremonies only; nothing could be 
insisted upon in the name of law. 

Yet in rejecting the authority of the Old Testament statutes, 
Paul did not reject the teachings of the Old Testament in toto. 
While quoting from the Old Testament the dicta of that legal- 
ism which he emphatically rejects (3'“), he more frequently 
quotes from it sentiments which he heartily approves. But, 
more important, he affirms that the whole law is fulfilled 
in one word to which he gives his unqualified assent (5”), a 
.sentence which in view of his clear rejection of certain dear 
requirements of the law can only mean that he saw in the law, 
alofig with many statutes that were for him of no value, certain 
fundamental piindplcs which he had come to regard as con- 
stituting the real essence and substance of the law. Thus 
Paul neither approves nor disapproves all that the Jewish 
church had canonised, but assumes tow&rds it a discriminative 
attitude, finding much in it that is true and most valuable, 
but denying that being in the Old Testament of itself makes a 
teaching or command authoritative. This discriminative atti- 
tude towards the Old Testament, coupled with the apostle’s 
clear recognition of its value as a whole and his insistence, 
des|nte his dissent from many of its precepts, upon connecting 
the Christian religion historically with that of the Old Testa- 
ment, is most significant. Though he has left us no definite 
statement to this effect, poasibly never formulated the matter 
in this way in his own mind, he in effect accepted the principle 
that while eacJh generation is the heir of all the ages, it is also 
the critic of all, and the arbiter of its own religion. His con- 
duct implied that not what was held in the fiast, though it 
stood in sacred scriptures with an affirmation of its perpetual 
authority, was determinative for the conviction and conduct 
t»{ living men, but that the criterion for IjcUef and action was 
to lie found in their own interi>retatk>n of human exi>ericnce, 
their own ejtjKsrieme and tlmt of past generations as fM as 
known to them. Religion is not then, for him, static, but 
fluid, In constant evolution under the influence of men's und«»- 
standi^ ol the experience of the race. 


This rejection of the authority of the Oki Testamenf as suc!i 
coupled with the apostle’s kindred contention that the gospc 
was for ail nations as they were, /. c., without entrance into th. 
Jewish community or subjection to Jewish law, nii»e«i square!; 
the issue whether Christianity was to he a fxttentially universa 
religion or was to continue, a.s it was at first, a serf of Judaism 
differing mainly by one doctrine from <-urrent Ptiarisaism. Oi 
this question I’aul took clear issue with the conservative part; 
among the believers in the Messiahship Jesus, ’riie inspira 
tion of lus mission was a vision a church universal worshiji 
ping the one GckI and Father, and accejrting Jeruis as I,f>rd am 
Sawour—a church into which men shotikl riMite from ever; 
nation and religion, not through the vestibule of Jurlaism atu 
the acceptance of the law of Mrjses and the riles of the t)li 
Testament, but straight from where they were and through ih 
single and ofsen dwr of faith in Jesus Christ, I lit o|»|s»nent 
also fielievcrl in one Chxl atul In Jesus as his Messiah, !«»( the; 
could not consent or conceive tluil men ihouk! enter the Chrii 
tian community except through an atieptamr «»f Judaism, o 
that the Christian church shouki iw anything el se than a spe< ih 
expression of the Jewish religious romniunity. 

But Paul bnmght the question of authority in rchst»«»n u> *h 
front In another way also. When the *si»str\«tlvr brethrc! 
at Jerusalem, whom Paul in his intemdty »if feeling denouiwr 
as false brethren, tw>k up arms against his ihn trinr of th 
ftwiom of the (lenllles and Ids praetknl apph«iiti<»n of it t 
ditumdsion and foorls, they found it nrir<i%ii> t.. (tleny hi 
right to assume to l»c an expositor of Chri’^iianily nn«! h > » hiu 
substantially that such authority was veu*'*! shtrir wht,» hai 
iwivid it from Jesus while he was alive nirth, thi 
affimatlim Paul ilenieti, elaiming llut he iiad an mdr|*»>nden 
i%bt t» iwiach the grwpel by virtue of the reveSaf ion «if Jmu-i i 
Um as the Son of Gml Ci**- *”’)• Vet in claiming for hi«t»l 
this rl^t to fiHwach the go»j>el without hiudmitc# m 
fKWi Ae Twelve he «*ni»il*»i to them *vp»Uy with th 

title «rf apwtle ft*'), and the same right to iwewh withm thel 
(faction the oMvktkwawItkh they hM 



indeed, that he was severe in his denunciation of those who 
endeavoured to undo his own work (i*), and was outspoken in 
his condemnation of those whom he regarded as false apostles 
(2 Cor. 1 1'*). But this is but the extreme affirmation of his own 
divinely conferred commission, and an evidence that zeal to 
make converts was not for him a necessary proof of a divine 
commis.sion or a right spirit. It in no way contravenes what 
we are now affirming that what he claimed for himself, viz., a 
divine commission and a corresponding responsibility, he freely 
admitted might be possessed by other men who did not wholly 
agree with him. Sitting in council with them he neither con- 
.sented to conform his own course of action or message to their 
practice nor demanded that they should conform theirs to his. 
The gospel of the circumcision and the gospel of the undreum- 
cision had certain elements in common, but they were by no 
means identical. Yet he claimed for himself the right and 
duty to preach his gospel, and admitted the right and duty of 
the other ajtostles to preach theirs. 

Thus to his rejection of the authority of Old Testament 
statutes over the conduct of the men of his time, he added in 
effect the denial that there was any central doctrinal authority 
for the ('hristian community a.s a whole. Claiming the right 
to teach to the Centiles a religion stripped of all legalism and 
reduced to a few religious and ethical prindpiea, he conceded 
to hfe fellow-apfjstles the right to attempt to win the Jews to 
faith in Jesus while leaving them still in the practice of a strict 
legalism. That both {Kirties alike had this right to preacth 
ace-oRling to their conviction, rlemanded that each should recog- 
nise the other's right. Such recognition Paul freely granted 
to his fellow-a[K>.stIe.H and claimed for himself. Thus without 
exjjountling in detail a diKtrinc of the seat of authority in 
religion, he in reality raised the whole question, and by implica- 
tiiin took a very jHisitive position, not against conference and 
amultation t»r coii-stderation for the rights of others — these he 
insisted m -but against the authority of community or coimdl, 
and in favour of the right of the individual to deliver the mes- 
sage he believes God has given him, and if he gives credible 



evidence of a real divine commission, to go forward with hi 
work without interference. 

But in connection with this principle of lil)erty in rdigio 
there arose in the mind of the aiK)stIe, as doubtless akf> i 
the minds both of his converts and his critics, further ( jucstion! 
What is the essence of true religion? How is nuual charatl* 
achieved? To men who had been wont to think of religion a 
authoritatively detined for them in certain sacred luKiks, < 
morality as consisting in ol>etlience to the statutes containe 
in these books, anti of acceptance with (ha! its ctmditione 
upon such obedience and membership in the community wImu 
uniting tie and basis of unity was a relation to the covenar 
recorded in the books, it was a serious question what lieram 
of religion and morality if tlierc was no longer any authoritati\ 
book or any centmlimi ecclesiastical authority. l*fecisely th 
question Paul never states in these words, but with the quei 
tion itself he deals explicitly and dirrctfly. Religion, he saj 
in effect, is not conformity to statutes, non*c'onhirmily, lu 
a spiritual relation to (kKl cxpresiied in the word "faith,** an 



The positions which he took were in the main not those that 
were generally accepted in his day or have been accepted since. 
He was not the first to announce them, but as held by him 
they were mainly the product of his own experience and think- 
ing. The writing of the Epistle to the Galatians was an 
epochal event in the history of religious thought. It is matter 
for profound regret that its vital contentions were so soon lost 
out of the consciousness of the Christian church. 


The question of the genuineness of Galatians is not easily 
detached from the larger questions, how Christianity arose, 
whether there was an apostle Paul who was a factor in its 
origin, and if so whether he wrote any letters at all. It can not 
be settled by the comparison of this letter with some other 
letter which is accepted as certainly written by Paul. For 
there is no other letter which has any better claim to be regarded 
as his work than Galatians itself. But neither can it be best 
discussed without reference to the other letters. As has been 
diown in con-sidering its occasion, the letter itself discloses, 
largely incidentally and without apparent effort or intention, a 
situation so complex, so vital, so self-consistent, so psychologi- 
cally credible as to make it very improbable that it is a work 
of art cunningly framed to create the impression that a situa- 
tion which existed only in the writer’s mind was an actual one. 
This fact is itself a strong reason for believing that the letter is 
a natural product of the situation which it reflects. Yet the 
question whether the letter was really written, as it professes 
to have been, by Paul, an early preacher of the Christian gospel 
and a founder of churches among the Gentiles, can liest be dealt 
with in connection with the same question respecting some, at 
least, of the other letters which bear his name. For the real 
question is what h)rpothesis best accounts for all the data; more 

^pwdfically whether the total evidence of the letters conriderdl 

in relation to ail other pertinent evidence renders It most 
probabte that th^ are all genuine products of real situation. 


wHch they severally disclose, or that the whole group is manu- 
factured, a work of art and literary device, or that while some 
are of the former kind, there are others whose qualities bring 
them under suspicion. Thus, in the same process, we select 
the genuine, if any such there are, and fix the standard by 
which to test the doubtful. In the attempt to select the docu- 
ments of early Christianity which, furnishing first-hand and 
basic testimony respecting that period, should constitute the 
standard by which to assign the other books to their proper 
place, Galatians has always been included in the normative 
group by those who have found in the New Testament collec- 
tion any books that were what they professed to be. On the 
other hand, its own claims to be from Paul and the claim of 
the church that it belonged to the first century have been 
denied only in connection with a general denial that we have 
any first-century Christian literature, or that there was any 
first-century apostle Paul. The reason for this is not far to 
seek. The situation out of which Galatians purports to spring 
and which it professes to reflect is a very definite and concrete 
one with strongly marked features. These features are largely 
repeated in certain other letters that also purport to come from 
Paul, with somewhat less close resemblance in still other let- 
ters bearing PauPs name, and in the Book of Acts. No one 
book can without arbitrariness be assumed to be the standard 
by which to test all the rest. No single book can arbitrarily 
be excluded from consideration or postponed for secondary con- 
sideration, But if in the examination of all the books purport- 
ing to come from the first age of the church, it proves to be a 
difficult task to restore from them all a self-consistent account 
of the whole situation, then it is not an irrational but a reason- 
able course to inquire whether there is any group which unitedly 
reflects a situation which is self-consistent, psychologically pos- 
sible, and in general not lacking in verisimilitude; and then in 
turn to make this group and the situation it discloses the point 
of departure for determining the relation of the rest to this 
situation. F. C. Baur and the Tubingen School may have 
been, probably were, somewhat arbitrary in limiting their 



normative group to Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, and Ro- 
mans. But their error was not in including these four in this 
group, nor chiefly in beginning with these, but in that having 
begun with these, they excluded such other letters as i Thessa- 
lonians, Philippians, and Philemon on insufficient grounds. 
l-\)r our present purpose we shall not go far wrong if with Baur 
we begin with the four letters that he accepted. 

Beginning thus, we find that these four letters all claim to 
have been written by a Paul who describes himself as an apostle 
of Jesus (Christ, and that they all present a clearly defined pic- 
ture of him, which, however they differ among themselves in 
important features, is yet consistent in the total result, and 
singularly life-like. In respect to the region of his work, his 
relation to the other afwstles and to parties in the church, his 
conception of Jesus and his attitude towards him, the outstand- 
ing elements of his religion, the characteristics of his mind and 
temper, they in part agree, in part supplement one another. 
Their differences are never greater than would be probable in 
the case of letters written by the same man in the same general 
period of his life but in different places and under different 

It k not nec!t*jiiaary for the purpono of this argument to inquire 
whether every part of the Epintlc to the Romann, as we pemsess it, was 
written by Paul, or how many epistles have been ('ombintxi in our 
stxalletl i Corinthians, or whether the editor has atldt^l some lines 
of his own. The imsibility of editorship including lK»th arnmgement 
anti mmt ad<iit,icms does not materially affect the significance of the 
siilmtantial and striking consistency and complementariness of the tes- 
tifiiony of the several letters to the character imd career of their author. 
Nor, m iiidiratetl alsove, is it necessary at this |»int to discuss the 
qutition whether t and 2 TIimidonianB, Philippians, Philemon, Coles- 
ikns, md Ephiala.ns have equal claim to genuinenets with the lour 
wiilf h Baur and hb school accepted. The couraa of action which the 
Inttrwi evidence of the lettera and dte history of critlrlsm combine 
to make mmt practicable k that which Is indicated above. 

It is not strange, therefore, that from the second century to 
the prmnt (klilians has Imn generally accepted as written 
by Paul md m conatiluling, therefore, a int-bimd wurce of 



knowledge concerning his life, his controversies, and his coi 

Consistently with the general practice of the time, and wh 
we find to be the case in respect to other New TeHlamerit hook 
there is a considerable periorl after the writing of the letter i 
which we find traces, indeed, of its influence <m 4»fher diristia 
writers but no explicit mention of it by the imiif riftier of tl 
author or of the persons addressed. 

There are certain rninridences of langiiaie hetwern itdAimm Ar 
I Peter, which »me writers take to he evklrntr of a itne of C»iikfki 
by the author of the F'etrine e|>i' 4 le. Vm Hodeii Iritnl hv lliii 
Si Fekf and Si, Jude^ in /ni CVIi Om. p, fifi?b mirh tA'Alk%mh 
between i Pet. and r#al, 4 *; hetwi^n 1 tVt, m4 ltd. 
and between 1 Pet. 3 * and (UL 4 **. C>, Foster* ty ! Kd 
iims #/ First EpMf. n/ Prier, New llavrn, men tiwti a «fill |fw»t 
list of coinddenco, which he iisirilten to dr|wtitlnire of t tVirr 1 
Galatians. If, m is pmhahle, we nhonld rerriniii^e a f 1 f|wmleiii«'e 1 
I Peter iifmn E<iman» (Kanday and flradkiti. t^m, m p 

tXKW /,) it in not Improlmble that the wtitrr knew ali 

But the |»s?«aftes rtletl are not, In themtrlrw 
evidence of iiidi knowletige. 

Probable rtrointeenccs of the k,ngii4^r of CtAlAlktin are fonitil 
Bam. ftp: tMw t# rVi 

Eom. 40** tT^v /tiw 1-%^* 

^pm T|4 aal f%* #*;,« 

(Gal. i«). Clewrcf paralleii npfimr In Polyr, l*li, . 

I-^ wl fl4 J4 ll» 

*k tip Miifm iktot. I04 IttI ‘vmm 

IpAt (Gal, 4*d; FkU, ^Gil r, 

note the minddroff of Iht In l»ili Jiii4 ^ 

am, I, r.); Phil, ii»: ful wn$ m m^^mm 0 $ ikm 

JmBm CMslum a in pslfmm fttl mm 4 

(G*l. id; Mmk iMS. 

Mmmiii) «i‘4 I 4 wG % p^$h 

mi m%1p» (Gtl List l» 
tfi ftifw wfffii P«r mkm i| 

m «flr Ch^fhtiw itetttiiff, tf, Chmmtk, p 

m f4 ۤm$ fm, mi h ti 1*1 

A« «trly m about the mhltfif «rf tt»» mmt4 crtiiwiy ilw 
eaated fete of th* Itttawi PatiJ, in whkh Cahnaii* t** liiMcIsinte 



From Tertullian, Adv^ Marc, V, and from Epiph. Ea^. XLII, we 
learn that Marcion accepted ten epistles of Paul, though somewhat 
modifying their text. These ten were Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, 
Romans, i and 2 Thessalonians, Laodiceans (Ephesians?), Colossians, 
Philippians, and Philemon. Both writers name them in the same 
order except that Epiphanius puts Philemon before Philippians. The 
agreement of a free-lance such as Marcion with the orthodox party 13 
more significant of the state of early Christian opinion than would be 
its acceptance by either alone, Marcion’s reference to the Epistle to 
the Galatians is apparently the first extant mention of it by name. 

The Muratorian Canon, which Gregory {op, ci$,, p. 129) dates about 
1:70 A. D , and most others before 200 a. x >, at latest (for different opinions 
see Jtilicher, Eifd,\ p. 146) includes Galatians among the epistles of 

From afxmt 175 a. d. quotations from the epistle with cita- 
tion of it by name, or express quotation of its language are 

Irenseui quotes Gd. 4«* * expressly ascribing it to Paul (Em. 3. 6*)» 
and S speaking of these passages as in the Epistle to the Ciala- 
tlans. (Em, 3. 7^*, See Chatteris, op. dl., p. 235. 

Clement of Alexandria, Sirm, 3**, says that **Paul writing to the 
Galatians says, t«xv(a |jtoo icdXty 48 fvw, oS Xptcrtbc h 

(Gal 4"^. 

Origen, Cm. Celsum^ v,*\ quotes Celaus as saying that men who 
differ widely among tliemselves, and in their quarrels inveigh mast 
shamefully against one another, may all be heard saying, “The world 
is iTudfied to me and I to the world Iptel laTafipwm, 

tip (Gal. 6*^). 

From the end of the .second century quotations from our 
rpiHtle are frequent, and no question of its Pauline authorship 
wm riiiserl until the nineteenth century. Even since that time 

few ^^hoiars have doubted it. 

To llriino Bauer apparently belonp the distinction of being the 
first iwttMii to fpestion the genuinencM of Galatians.* In opijoiltion 

• ilefei ijrtvbady a of tl» Cliufcli of Eagkad* 

in hii wmk ♦» tli# ^ mt Pmr Cmm^y Bmdmi 1791, bb 

tii# fiwrth dtaffil tl» of Romaw, 

dm*, »»»i mi #ip*nwfl »km% Tiiw. m«I tot 

IMrnhm, Cf. Suf. Km. p. Ewiwliat* SL 

M riirffl. p. |i. p. 4. mimt to to la itwr l» iliit Efi«» 

Itt Ite Ai tto hmk% d ito H«w ‘IwtMitftt mltk llw M 

I tow M Mil 



to the well-known view of F. C. Baur and the Tubingen school that 
the chief factor in the production of the genuine literary remains of 
the apostolic age was the controversy between the judaistic party 
in the church and the opposing liberal tendency represented by Pmh 
and that Galatians, i and 2 Corinthians, and Romans were the prod- 
ucts on the Pauline si<le of this conflict, B. Bauer in his Kriiik der 
paulinischen Briefe, Berlin, 1850-52, assigned practically all the Ixwkfi 
of the New Testament, including all the so-called letters Pmil, to 
the second century* But, like Evanson before him, Bauer hniwl no 

In 1SS2 Professor A, D. Loman of Amsterdam began the puhllc afton 
of a scries of I^ssays in Theokpsch Tiidsekrifi under the title 
tiones Paulina?,’’ in which, though rect»gnising the eicisleniT of Paiib of 
whom we gain our most trustworthy knowledge in the W€-*iei£tioiir/* 
of Acts, he maintained that we have no letters frem Paul, ami that 
all the letters accepted by Baur are in reality atiempta hi prr^nt asi 
idealised Paul. 

A. Pieraon, who in 1H7B had incidentally rxprwawl floiitit!i of I lie 
genuineness of the Epistle to the Galatians, in tWi loinrd with S, 
Naber in a volume entitle<!, VnmmUiu: isfmm mmiiiimrm Ntwi 
Tfsiammii axmplk iUmimruni d ah tmpfm rfpriimmi. Ttiry r % . 
plainwl all the New Testament Iwmkn m tlif rraulf of a Glirbliw 
wcirking-over of liooks produced originally by a lilierid hoot of Jrwhili 
thought. The Pauline epistles in particular are Ilie iiwwliirt of llie 
«iitorkl work of a certain Pauhw EpGcopiw of the ifrond reiitiiry. 

Rudolf Sleek, In iMdrfkrkf nm.k mnff ErkiM miwtmk, 
Berlin, iHHS, maltitaiitw the historirlty of the ainnlk Ikiil, but Iirtl 4 .i 
that like jeans he wrote nothing. The hutr prlttci|ial lettrr^ 
to Paul he maintains to have twen wrlileii lit Ihc offlrf: 

I Corintlikna, a Corinthians, ikihilmi, by tlr Pauline ihe 

last l>elng bawl u|ion the earlier mm. 

Vm Manen iii first vigorou^ily opiarwl the views of tint 

kter advwami Hmikr opiniom. In liG arlkle in 

Emyi\ Bib, vol. Ill, col. hr coniwitb that '*we fio 

epiities of Pitir* (r*il jojib **and various leiil iii f»i 4^ 

ihft rancmial leii lof Galaikns! k rommirii to tlilnl of a 
ttcfftptMloii of 1 letter previously tm 4 In tht einif the 
alihcmfl we $m m to»itr In a poiltkin lo tin* oliln biwC' 

{col #17), 

It is no longer namsary to rlineum t,h»y4f vkm at knutft 
They Ijeloiig already to the history of *»jiiinion rather tiwn to 
livii^ iwies. OtilMife the limited «ir>'!e .if the wiitei i iiioned 



above and a very few others* they have won no adherents either 
in England or America or on the Continent. The verdict of 
Germany as expressed by H. J. Holtzmann is accepted by 
scholars generally. '*For ten years a determined effort was 
made by Holland and Switzerland to ascribe all of the epistles 
of Paul as not genuine to the second century. This attempt 
has found no support from German theology’^ {New Worlds 
June, 1894, p. 21 $)- 

The student who is interested may consixlt the works above referred 
to for the views of the writers themselves, and for criticism of their 
views: Zahn, MWkL, 1889, pp. 451-466; Gloel, Die jUngsU Kritik 
dss GakUerbrieJes^ Erlangen, 1890; Schmidt, Der GcUaterbrief tm Feuer 
der muesim KrUik^ Leipzig, 1892; Godet, t niroduclien to the Epistles 
of Si» Fault 1S94, pp. 230 Jf.; Knowling, of the Epistles, L^n- 

^n, 189a, chap. lii; and Testimony of SL Paul to Christ, New York, 
1905, Preface and Lectures I and III; Schmiedel, article, Galatians/’ 
in Emye* Bib, vol. It, cols. 1617-1623; Clemen, Paulus, Giessen, 1904, 
vol. I, pp. 6-42; Lake, Earlier Epistles of St, Paul, London, 1911, chap- 
¥ 11 ; cf, also literature referred to by Moff. Inirod,, p. 107, KnowL 
ing, and Schmiedel, op, cU, 

Modern criticism as represented by scholars of all schools of 
thought, with the few exceptions noted, ratifies the tradition 
of centuries that the letter to the Galatians was written, as it 
claims to have hmn, by Paul, the Christian apostle of the first 
century. The internal evidence of the letter, with the vivid 
<liscdosure of a commanding personality and a tense and in- 
tensely interesting situation, and the correspondence of that 
situation with that which Ls reflected in the other literature 
professing to come from the same author and period, supple- 
meiiled by the external evidence, rather meagre though it is, 
furnish mi ground or occasion, indeed, for any other opinion. 

* J, Frkfifkh, t/umkikSi 4m GeisUithfibdv, t$^ti Xslllwf , riite dm Ckrhim* 

»904i Mem, tmj; Fmem Ckri$u, Cf, KmwUm and 




I. Introduction, i*-*®. 

1. Salutation, including assertion of the writer’s apos- 

tolic authority 

2 . Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened 

abandonment of his teaching by the (Jalatians, in 
which is disclosed the occasion of the letter i* '®. 

II. Personal Portion of the Letter. 

The general theme established by proving the ajjostle’i 
independence of all human authority and direct 
relation to Christ: a®'. 

I. Proposition: Paul recelvwl his gospel ml from men 
but immediately from CihI t" 
a. Evidence substantiating the premling anierlion id 
his indt‘[)enden<'t‘ of human authority drawn from 
variou.s {x:ri<Kis of his life i” a”. 

a. Evidence drawn from hia life fscfore hi« conver- 

sion i‘*‘ 

b. Evidence drawn from the eiroumstamw of his 

conversion and his rondirt imwcdiatriy there 

e. Evidence drawn from a visit to Jentsalcm three 

years after his amversion t*' *. 

S. E^^ence drawn from the pericvl of hk stay In 
Syria and Cilida i®*". 

«. Evidence drawn from his conduc t m a visit to 
Jmmlcm fourteen years after the preceding 
one 3‘ ‘*. 

/, Evident drawn from hi* coirfuct In rwistiiig 
Peter at Antioch a**‘**. 

f. ConUmMition and eapanshm of W# wMim at 

An^doeh *0 stated as to he te the tialeHim*, 
also aa expeadtiee of the which he 

imeached a**-*. 


m •«« 


in. REruxATORY Portion or the Letter. 

The doctrine that men, both Jews and Gentiles, become 
acceptable to God through faith rather than by works 
of law, defended by refutation of the arguments of 
the judaisers, and chiefly by showing that the “heirs 
of Abraham” are such by faith, not by works of 
law. Chaps. 3, 4. 

1. Appeal to the early Christian experience of the 

Galatians 3‘-‘. 

2. Argument from the faith of Abraham, refuting the 

contention of his opponents that only through 
conformity to law could men become “sons of 
Abraham ” 3«-». 

3. Counter argument, showing that those whose stand- 

ing is fixed by law are by the logic of the legalists 
under the curse of the law 3*'*-“. 

4. Argument from the irrevocableness of a covenant 

and the priority of the covenant made with 
Abraham to the law, to the effect that the coven- 
ant is still in force 3“-“. 

5. Answer to the objection that the preceding argu- 

ment leaves the law without a reason for being 


6. Characterisation of the condition under law and, in 

contrast with it, the condition since faith came: 
then we were held in custody under law; now we 
arc all sons of C>od, heirs of the promwe 3®-* 

7. Continrmtion of the argument for the inferiority of 

the condition under law, with the use of tire iilus- 
tration of guardianship 4'-^. 

8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians 

as one of iKmdage to gods not really such, and 
exhortation to them not to return to that state 

4 »«. 

9. Affttttionate appeal to the Galatians to mter fitUy 

into Uu^r freedom from law, referring to thdr 



former enthusiastic reception of the apostle and 
affection for him 4*’-’®. 

10. A supplementary argument, based on an allegorical 
use of the story of the two sons of Abraham, and 
intended to convince the Clalatian.s that they arc 
joining the wrong branch of the family 4’' 

IV. Hortatorv Portion of thk I^etter. 5* f)*" 

I. Exhortations directly connected with the dm’trinr 
of the letter 5' O". 

a. Appeal to the Clalatians to stand fast in their free 

dom in C'hrist 5' 

b. Exiiortation not to convert their lilwrty in Christ 

into an occa.sion for yielding to the impul.ic i>f 

the flesh 5'’*®*. 

c. Exhortation to restore thosi* who fall, and to l»ear 

one anothcr’.s burdt*ns O' 

a. E.thortation.s having a less flirert relation to the 
prineifKil subject of the epistle o’ 


1. Final warning against the judjiisers 6" 

3. Appeal enforcetl by reference to his own sufferings o* 

3. Final lienediction 6'*. 


Acc^ting in general the principles of Westeott and Hort. 
the author of this commentary lias diligently examinetf the 
available cvuJencc for the test of (Jalatiam in the light of thoir 
principles. The result has naturally Iteen the acceiitam e }»<r 
the mmt i»rt of the Westcott and Hurt test . yet in a few . 
the evidence has seemed to retpiire the adoption of a different 
rMdIng from that pref«srr»f by those eminent vtfwlars, 

The evidence ha* been gained almost wholly from Tischeit- 
dorf, Namm T$skmmmm iirmc*, etl. net. crit. wiaj, f.«p4ig, 
187 a. Use has also been made of Houter. Namm Tfstamimhtm 
Grms, Oxford, 1910, and, for the m. H., of llw ret«o«luriFm» 



of it by Omont, Robinson, and Lake. See below, p. Ixxvi. The 
notation is that of Gregory as found in Die griechischen Hand- 
sckriften des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1908. 

The epistle is found in whole or in part in twenty-one uncial 
manuscripts, being complete in sixteen of them. The five 
instances in which it is incomplete are noted in the following 

N. Codex Sinaiticus. Fourth century. In Imperial Li- 
brary, Petrograd. Edited by Tischendorf, 1862; 
photographic reproduction by H. and K. Lake, Ox- 
ford, 1911. 

A. Codex Alexandrinus. Fifth century. In British Mu- 

seum, London. Edited by Woide, 1786; N. T. por- 
tion by Cowper, i860; Hansell, 1864; in photo- 
graphic facsimile, by E. Maunde Thompson, 1879; 
and again in photographic simile by F. G. Kenyon 
in 1909. 

B. Codex Vatkanus. Fourth century. In Vatican Library, 

Rome. Photographic facsimile by Cozza-Luzi, 1889; 
and a second issued by the Hoepli publishing house, 

('. Codex Rphmmi Rescriplus. Fifth century. In National 
Library, Paris. As its name implies, it is a palimp- 
sest, the text of the Syrian Father Kphrem being 
written over the original biblical text. New Testa- 
ment {KJrtion edited by Tischendorf, 1843. Con- 
tains Gal. i”, ^jreira t«j the end, except tliat certain 
lefivrs are rlamageii on the edge, causing the loss of 
a few worth. St» e. g. or ^^Rot, GaJ. 5“®. 

I)». ( Mirx Claromontams. Sixth century. In National 
Library, Paris. Greek-lAtin. Ktlited by Tischen- 


F.». Cmkx Smgemmmsh. Ninth century. In Petro- 
gratl. Greek-Latin. A otpy, not very gmxl, of 



Codex ClaromonUinus, Hence not cited in the 


F. Ccdex Augiensis. Ninth century. In Trinity College^ 
Cambridge. Greek-Latin. Edited by Scrivener, 
1859. Closely related to Codex Bmymrmnus, See 
Gregory, TextkriUk^ pp, ii^/. 

F*^. Codex Parisknsis Coislmianus /. Seventh century. 
In National Lil)rary, Paris. Edited liy Tiscliendorf 
in Mon, Sac. Imd, 1846. ContainH CkiL 4^®* ”, 

Codex Bermrianm, Ninth «nf;iiry. In Royal Li- 
brary, Dresden. Ctreek-IaliiL Edited by Mat- 
thiei, 1701; photographic reprcKluction iMiied hy Itie 
Hiememann publishing house, Lcdp/jg, 

H. Sixth century. The fragments of this tm. atre simitrrcd 
in six Kuro{>ean libraries. The |M»rlioii lit Alhos 
contains GaL that in the Iiiif»»rkl Library 

at Pttrognifl GaL that in the National 

library in Paris C#a!. 4^^ The fiorlliiiis kiniwii 
at that time were published by IL^iimdorf in Mm. 

.,1 t ft iff. t*,.. . .1 * i 


of the text in this commentary are made from the 
publications of Omont, Robinson, and Lake. 

K. Codex Mosqumsis. Ninth century. In Moscow. 

L. Codex Angelicus. Ninth century. In Angelica Library 

in Rome. 

N**. Codex Petropolitanus. Ninth century. In Imperial 
Library, Petrograd. Contains Gal. 

P. Codex Porphyrianus. Ninth century. In Imperial Li- 
brary, Petrograd. Published by Tischendorf in 
Mon. Sac. Ined. Bd. V, 1865. 

■'P. Eighth or ninth century. At the monastery of the 
Laura on Mt. Athos; unpublished. See Gregory, 
Textkritik, p. 94; Kenyon, Textual Criticism of N. T. 

p. ISO. 

056. Tenth century. In National Library, Paris. See 
Gr^ory, Textkritik, p. 296, No. 19, p. 1047. 

063. Fourth or fifth century. In Damascus. Contains only 
Gal. See Gregory, Textkritik^ p. 1047. 

075. Tenth century. In National Library, Athens. See 
Gregory, Textkritik, p. 309, No. 382, p. 1061. 

0142. Tenth century. In Royal Library, Munich. See 
Gregory, 'Textkrilik, p. 267, No. 46, p. ro8i. 

0*50. Tenth century. InPatmos. Sae Gregory, Textkritik, 
p. 311, No. 413, p. ro8r. 

0151. Twelfth century. In Patmos. See Gregory, Text- 
kritik, p. 3 1 1, Nos. I and 14, p. 1081. 

The text of the last seven mas, was not available for use in 
the text-criticd notes of this commentary. 

Of the approximately six hundred cursive manuscripts which 



however, for the most part only when they sustain the readings 
of the more ancient authorities, and some of them only once 
or twice. These sixty-six arc i, 2, 3, 4, 5*, 6, 10, 31, 32, 33, 30, 
42, 88, 93, loi, 102, 103, 104, 122, 181, 205, 206, 2CKJ, 2tft, 218, 
234, 242, 263, 309, 314, 3^9. 323, 326, 327, 328, 330, 330, 

356, 424*, 429, 431, 436. 440, 442, 450, 460, 402, 493. 494, 479, 
489, 60s, 618, 642, 190S, 1906, 1908, iQti, 1912, 1913, 1924, 
1927, 1944. I9SS. 2125. 

The readings ff)r whicii Tischendorf <'ites (!»'•><> mss. arc 
almost exclusively such as would he cliissed as pre .Syrian hy 
Westcott and Hort. 'I'he attestation of tlu* rival reading is in 
most case-s either exclusively Syrian, or Western and Syrian. 
The pre-Syrian element is most clearly marked in the following 
six mss.: 

31 (Tdf. 37) the .Ho-callerl Leicester (kwlex. Fifteenth cen- 
tury. At Leicester, England. ! fesa-rilK'd hy J. Rentiel Harris 
in The Origin of the Leicester Codex of the \tH' Testnment, l4»n- 
don, 1887. 

33 (Tdf. 17). Ninth or tenth century. In National I.ihuny, 
rari.s. Called hy Eichhorn “ the nueen of the i iir>4iver.." filed 
by Tischendorf in (ialatians more fre«inentiy than any t»fhrr 
cursive. Contains the I’rophcts as well a.H (fosjrels, .Acts, Cath. 
Epp. and Paul. 

424 (Tdf. Patti 97). Eleventh century. In Vietma. It is 
in the a>rrcctit»ns of the secoml Itand (424*! that the pre Syriati 
elemetit cwjwcially apjH*ars. Set: Westcott and Hort, IntrM, 
§ 212, p. ts.*;- 

43ft (Tdf. 80). Eleventh century. In the \‘alican Library, 

442 (Tdf. 73). Thirteenth century, In 

1908 (Tdf. 47). Eleventh century. In litKlirian l.ihracy, 


and Hort ascribe to these groups in the Pauline epistles in 

In the following one hundred and two instances (which in- 
clude, it is believed, all except those in which either the varia- 
tion or its attestation is unimportant) K and B agree and 
are supported by various groups of other uncials: i*- **• “ 

2^, S CS)***, 6, 8, 9(2), 10, 11, 12, 18, 14(3), 16(4), 18 ^1, 2, 6, 8, 10, 12, 18, 1«, 

17 (2), 19. 22, S8 (2), 24, 29 (2) ^2, 4, 6 (2), 7 (2), 8 (2), 14, 16 (3), 17 (2), 18, 19, 21, 

26, 20. 80 (t), 81 5* 7(2), 10 (2), 12, 13, 14 (2), 16, 17, 19 , 20 (2), 21, 28 (2), 

24, 26 gl (2), 3, 1(2), 9, 10, 12 (2), 13, 14(2), 16, 16, 17^ Jjl 2^^ 

which is the reading of KBDFG 39, 442, is undoubtedly 
an error, though manifestly very ancient. In 6” transcrip- 
tional probability is against Stc^Kcovrat, the reading of 
KBD, but intrinsic probability is strongly in its favour. In 
nearly half the remaining instances internal evidence, chiefly 
transcriptional probability, is dearly on the side of the reading 
of HB ; in a considerable number of cases the external attesta- 
tion of the rival reading is so weak as to leave no room for 
doubt that the reading of NB is the original; in no case other 
than the two named is there any strong evidence for the read- 
ing opposed to that of KB. 

■ K and B agree in supporting a reading unsupported by other 
uncials whose text is available in eight passages, vix., 3’'- “ 

4'' 5” 6'“. In 4* K and B stand quite alone. In 3^ 

their reading is found alst> in early fathers, in 3“ in two andent 
verrsions, Syr. (psh.) and Acth., but in no other Greek manu- 
script so far as noted. In the other passages their reading is 
supj>orted by gtKxl cursives. Of the eight passages the KB 
reading is urufuestionably correct in 6'“; almost unquestionably 
wrong in 4'*'; in all the otlier instances it is accepted or given the 
prdc*rent;e by Westcott atid Hort, and doubtless rightly, except 
in 4*, where ^cXefkrai seems clearly to be a corruption of the 
original text. 

K and B are <ipjK>«?d to one another in forty-four instances. 
In slxtwn of these K is aceomi>anief! by A and by either C or P 
or Iwth, anti B i.s accomixinietl by PG (once G only) or D, 



sometimes by both. The sixteen pa.ssages are t*- "■ '*• *•; 

26. u, so ^u, 33, 36 , 38 jse (53. 7. is_ Triofl by internal evidence 
neither group can be said to be uniformly superior to the other. 
The reading of NA (C) (P) is preferred by Westcott and I fort 
in twelve of the sixteen instances; vi/.. in i’- *'■ *’* i”- ’• 

^36 53. 7, w 'pheir judgment seems o[)en to question in refer- 
ence to 2* 4“*, but in the other nine cases there seems no 
reason for doubt. 

In seven in-stances KACP, and in two instances HAP ((' 
being lacking), are accompanitsl also by I)F(!, and P stands 
opposed to them supported by gotnl cursives (j.^, 4^4*), versions 
or fathers, but by no weighty uncial authority. These ttine 
{)assages are 2'^- ** .?'*• (>"• In five of tfu’se 

I)as.sages the B reading is probably the original. In fd® \ 
cott an<l Hort are clearly right in accepting the reading «if B 
without alternative. In all the rest they give both readings, 
one in the fe-xt, the other in the margin, preferring the KA(! 
reading in four of the {>a.ssages. 

In the remaining ninefe«*n cases in which H ami B are op- 
{KJsed to one another the division evidence varies greatly. 
The B reading .settms clearly preferalile in 1* j”- ’• f#I< 
effri iif Xpierr^ ft*- the H reading in 4* 4** 

4» In the other cases neither is clearly the orig- 

!tg is protsibty «o in t*{#i&«7y*X»|'i? 

'•*' {f»}Xo«) ft'*; the B reading in 



ACP is very rarely original. The KACP group is stronger 
without the support of DFG than with it. In the instances in 
which the cursive 33 is quoted it agrees with X eight times, 
with B ten times. It is almost invariably on the side of the 
more probable reading, but it is possible that the record would 
be somewhat different if it had been cited in all the forty-four 
cases in which W and B are on opposite sides. 

It is not within the scope of this commentary to discuss the 
textual theory of Von Soden, nor has it been judged practicable 
to cite the evidence which he has assembled in addition to that 
of Tischendorf. His text of Galatians differs all told in forty- 
six readings from that of Westcott and Hort. But this number 
gives an exaggerated impression of the real difference between 
the two texts. Of the forty-six instances of disagreement one 
(0 <rdp^, 5”) is the result of a palpable misprint in Von Soden. 
Nine are differences in the spelling of a word as, e. g., by the 
addition or omission of v movable. Three pertain to order of 
words, not affecting the sense. In eleven Westcott and Hort 
and Von Soden adopt the same reading, but Westcott and 
Hort admit an alternative reading which Von Soden ignores 
«. it 2«. »». SI 4*» 5« 61. *, i»). In eleven Von Soden adopts (in 
ten cases without alternative, in one with alternative) the read- 
ing to which Westcott and Hort give their second preference: 
viz., in t* for inrdp; in 3'“ o5 for in 3“ ix v 6 pov &v 
for iv viipm dv in 4* SouXeueo' for SouXeCcrai; in 4** SiA rfjs 
for 5 t*; in 4” vptii . . . iffrd for . . . iapdp; in 5“ 

^^Xoi for !pts, in 6 *’ rev j^purroO for tou jffjiffrou 

in s« tca^ in brackets for in the margin. In 
eleven cases Vtm Soden ad<^)t8 a reading which is not recog- 
nised by Westcott and Hort and involves more than spelling 
or order of words, viz., in 1' eoayyeX/fTjroi for e^ayyeXfb'iyrat; 
in j*® ffiryxtKXttffp^tmi for arvPKXeulptPOi; in 4“ ydp for S^; 
In 4*® for KXrjpopop^aa; In 6* ixxaK&pey for 

ipneuc&ptp; in s” for in 6‘» for in 

3‘ adds after iffranpupipos', in 4*' [Tdvrm] after 

In s“ [^»w| after and in 6” xupfbu before 

'Ig<ro©. With the exception of s*‘ none of these diffcr«M*s 



aflect.s the meaning of the passage further than in the shade of 
the thought or explicitness of expression. 

In a number of instances the reading adopted by Von Soden 
had before the publication of his text alreatly been adopted 
for the present work in preference to tiiat of VVestcott and llort. 
So, e. g., in i* ivayytXt^rjrai, in vdjMV, 4* 

42* vixits . . . eVre. 

An examination of the whole series fails to tlisclose any dear 
and constant principle underlying the text of Von Soden, 
Rut it is evident tiiat he gives to H much less weiglil than do 
Westcott and Ilorl, rates KAC higher Ilian they «lo, y*'t puls 
DFG still higher, and even at times prefers a reading suppitrfed 
by K.LP to its rival sujtiKirtetl by all the other iiiieiiils. 

For a discussion of the evidence of the ancient versions and 
the fathers the reader is rt'ferred to the standard treatises mt 
Textual Criticism, such as (Iregory, Tfxtkriiik tits ,\ritrrt /Vs- 
lamenis, voL II, Leip^'.ig, t(p.v, Citm>n ami Trxi »;/ //ic Xrtt> />.» 
iiimeni, New York, too?; Kenyon, Textual t ritkim uf the 
New TesimienP, London, ipu. 


Tlll^ Ikt Wil liirliiilr tn tlir Hrm 

Ummi uf 1.1* llir Paiilittr l 4 |p i»f 

m llr wr TmUmwni 

I'ntt iiiiliifliiil iti thh list ,!*fr rrlwr 4 !♦* In tlw ttw* 



liif a Ikt Pitrlilk *ifi itw llir Ckklbii* will* 

clarirftrimiiiiii *4 limn w J, It,* Si PmiU ilr 

|i|i, AII4 i,\ II,, m 

lie Piitilittf III IIDiW, ¥p|. \\ |i|i 4^4 £■ 

llcaiittin, « 1^ |#|i 

• II# fesw In m ^ M #^/ii #cfi 

*»l 14 ttii» ^4 liiinf m\mmk #1^*** 

llfi «ttf4 IrttttI m. ww* 44lf« 

»«al vm Iw *• 4 * *i;f #.* 

ksfffil m t'ilw. 



Faber, J., Rpistole dm Patdi AposloU: cum Commcntariis, Paris, 1517, 
"“Luther, Martin, In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Commmtarius. Leipzig, 
1519. German edition, 1525. 

In Epistolam S. Pauli ad Galatas Commentarius ex Pmkctione D. 
AL Ltdheri collectus. Wittenberg, 1535. (Not a revised edition of 
the preceding, but a distinct and larger work. Sec preface to the edi- 
tion of J. C. Irmischer, Erlangen, 1843, 1844.) Many other editions 
and translations. For characterisation, sec S. and TI., p. ciii. 

Erasmus, Desiderius (Rotcrodamus), In Epistolam Pauli ad Galatas Para^ 
pkrasis, l^npzig, 1519. 

Bugenhagen, J., Admtatiom^s in Epistolas ad GalalaSf etc. Basic, 1527. 
Ballinger, Heinrich, Comimmiarii in omnes Epislolas Apostolarum, 1537. 
Gajcian, 'fhomas dcs Vio, In omms D. Pauli et aliorum Epistolas Comment 
lurii. I^yons, I53(). 

*(!alvin, J., Cammentarii in quatmr Pauli Epistolas (GaL Kph. Phil. CoL). 
Cfcneva, 1:548. 

* - In amms Pauli Apostoli Epistolas Commmtarii. Geneva, 1565. 
Various later editions and translations. 

FhaKlore dr, Novum Tesiamentum . . . ejusdem Th, Bezce Annoia^ 
tioms. Geneva, 1565. 

Prime, John, Exposition and Observations upon St. Paid to the Galatians. 
Oxford, 1587. 

Piscator, Johannes, Comnmdarli in omnes Libros Novi Tesiamenti. Ilerborn, 

Estiiw, GuilelmuR, In omms Pauli Epistolas Commmiarii. Douay, 1614, 
Lapide, C'orneliiw a (('. Van den Steen), Commentarius in omnes D. Pauli 
Episiohis. AntwtTp, 1614. Numerous later editions. 

C 'Irrifiu'i, Jdhann, ( 'ommrHiarius in Epistolam PauU ad Galatas, Racov, 1 628. 
(irotiiw, Hugt» (Iluig van Grwt), Annotatmm in Novum Tesiamentum. 
PariH, 1044. Sw S. and IL, p. civ. 

Jcitianneji (Johann Kwh), Commmtarim in Epistolam ad Galatas. 

Gatov, Ahrahimt. In BihUa Nm 7 'esiame.nii Ulmtraia, Frank fc^rt, 1676. 
I^wkr, Johiu A Pampkmso ami Notes on St, Paul to the Gakdtam^ Corin'- 
lMam,rU\ lamiion, 1705. 

*ilrf>grl. Jttiteiin Albrrrht, in Gnomon Nmi TeskimeMi, Tilbingen, 1742, 
5>rr S, and IL, p. ilIL 

Micli'.ielln, Jiiliafifi iKivirl, Pampkrash iiwd Anmt^kMnim Mbet dk Brief $ 
Pmdi die ikkitr, Ephner, etc. Bremen, 1750. Fai. altera, 1769. 
Wfmt'm |or Wettiteinb J. J., Nmum Trsiammium Grmum, Amsterdam ^ 


Smiier, Jftliaiifi Parapkrans Epistoim ad (Makts^ mm Proiffomimm^ 


MAtthafi, P. F., PmS EpiMdm ni Gnkim, Epkemm, d FkUipp§mm, E4 



Mayer, F. G., Der Brief Pauli an die Galater, etc. Vienna, 17SS. 

Borger, E. A., Inlerpretatio Rpistolae Pauli ad Gdatm. Ixyden, 1807* 
RosenmUller, Ernst Friedrich Karl, in Scholia in Nomm Tmiamcnium, 
Leipzig, 1815. 

*Winer, Georg Benedict, Padi ad Galdas Epistola. lAtlim wrlU ti pcrpetm 
AnnokUiom illmlravU. Leipzig, 1821. Ed. cinarta, 1850. 

FlatL Karl Christian, Voriestmgen Uber dk Brkfe, Pmdi m dm GdaScr und 
Rpheser. Tubingen, 1828. 

Paulas, Heinrich Eberhard Ciottlob, Deft A poMs Pmdm Lf^brkp an dm 
GaMer-- und Rbnmchruten, Hetdell^erg, 

KUrkert, Leopold Immanuel, Commeniar idmr dm Brief Pimli m ik GdSfr. 
Uipzig, 183,^ 

Matthies, Konrad Stephan, ErMdkung in Brief cs an dm ikkikf. Ctreili. 
wald, 1833. 

Usteri, L., K&mmmiar Mhrr den Gedaierbrief, Zlirlrh, 183;!. 

Fritzwhe, Karl Friedrich Atigust, Commniarim de mnnuUk BpkiMm fid 
Gaiaim Lack* Ri»sPH"k, 1833 ■■•4, 

Schott, IL A., lipisidw Pmdi ad Thexmlankemcs el (kklax, la'ipzlg, 1834, 
Olshausen, Hermann, in BiMkcktr K&mmedm dber xdtnmiiklu^ Sekrifim drt 
Neuen Tesiamemis* Forlgesrt/t vtm FLrard und Wiwiiigrr. 
l>erg, iBjO' tu (CtaL 1840L E. T. by A, i\ Krntirii k. New Vofk, 
*A!eyer, Heinrich August Wilhelm, Kriiisik^etegriiukex Mandbmk uhrr dm 
Brief m dk c^iluler . C lingen, 184 1 , in Kriimk^eM$r$kt:krr Kimmmiar 
ahr dm Neue Taiammi, 1831' 30* F* T-» liililli^rapliy, by Vrn 
abkS’aiid Hirtem, I'kllnburgh, 1873'%. Varkmi taler riithiiw. Sre 
mliti iinikr Sitiert 

Martin l^lurr'n'hl «le, Kursi? HrHMrMni dm Bmfm $m dir 
m.€\ 1841, in KmngefM%kM megdlhckcM Hanikmk .siiin 

fukimd, ill3ti-48, Varimt?! talrr edithnw. 

Ikuaigarlrn-Criiiliis, Luilwig Frirtifirh Oitr*, Uhsw dm Bfkf 

PaM m dk Gdakr, heraufgeirWti vm It, J. Eiwiiirl, Jrna, 184-^, 
Ilaltltiif, Jiim« Alexander, Am #/ ll» Plpide lit 1^ 

ktiidofi, *848. 

Alffird, Henry, in Greek TeHitimmi * , * # CriikS 
liiry kitidiin, VarbiM etlillunc 

•ililftnirlil, Atbilpli, Ber Gdaltrhkf MkwrrfyG im mimm gmrMMif.ken 
h$mim MokrmM erMSrl Wpilg, 1831. 

ifowi* J#liR, d# #/ Mpkik Pad la $h GSi$km,i 

kirili* fill* 

Clwiflf* |t^», J €!'fk'kd GmwmdM Cr^^^iirt m Mi. 
Piid'$ Iflilfe $$ ih GMim$. lawfem* tis4* Vmkm 

♦JciwitL itii|a»i«» Tfe Si. Pmd k ih 

M 0 mm. iS||. EMM hy L CmiM, 1%#, 


Webster, W., and Wilkinson, W. F., The Greek Testament with Notes Gram- 

mcUical and Exegetical^ London, 1855-61. 

Wordsworth, Christopher, iix The New Testament in the Original Greek, 
London, 1856-60. sth ed., 1867, 1868. 

Bagge, H. J. T., St, Patd^s Epistle to the Galatians, London, 1857, 

Ewald, Heinrich, in Sendschreiben des Apostds Paulus, GSttingen, 1857. 
Bisping, August, in Exegetisches Handhuck zu den Brief en des Apostels Pauli, 
MUnster, 1857. 

♦Wieseler, Karl, CommetUar iiber den Brief Pauli an die Galaier. GSttingen, 

Holsten, Carl, Inhdt uni Gedanhmgang des Pauli Brief es an die Gakier, 
Rostock, 1859, 

Schmolkr, Otto, D&t Brief Pauli an die Galater. Bielefeld, 1862, in Theo* 
logisck-homiktisches Bihelwerk, herausgegeben von J. P. Lange, Various 
later editions. E. T. by C. C. Starbuck. 

Gwynne, G, J., Cmmtiary on St, Paulas Epistle to the Galatians. Dublin, 


Kamphausen, Adolph Herman Heinrich, in Bunsen^s Bibelmrk, Leipzig, 

’**Llghtfoot* Joseph Barber, SaM Paul*s Epistle to the Galatians, London, 
1865, revised, 1866. Various later editions. 

Relthmayr, F. X,, Commentar mm Brkfe an die Galater, Miinchen, 1865, 
Carey, Sir Stafford, The Epistk of the Apostle Paul to the Galatians, Lon- 
don, 1867. 

Eaclie, John, Commentary on the Greek Text of the EpisUe of Paul to the Qalor 
tiam, Edinlmrgh, i860. 

Braiirk^s, FrhHlrlth, Des A pastels Paulus Sendschreihm an die Galater, Wles- 
haikn, 1S69. 

lioltttcn, i?a.rh Dm Emngitium des Pmdus, Th. I, Abth. i. Berlin, rSSo. 
SkffrrI, Friedrich, Dtr Brief an dk Gaktt^^ in KrUmk-acegetmher Kmn- 
meMm #fr im Nme begrffndet von H. A. W. Meyer. Gbt- 

tiiigea, 1880, Skffert^s first edition is counted m the sixth in 'the 
Meyer iierlci. The edition cited in this work k the ninth, 1899. 
Iltiwaiti, J, S., Ill The Bihk Commmdmy^ edited by F. C. Cook. New York, 

Sc'liai* in A F&p^ar Cmmwmtary m iJk Nm Testammi, New York, 


linger, Fflrfricli, t)ir Brkf PaM m dk Gdatm^, Heidelberg, 1882. 

Fri«lflth Aclolpit, FMUrmg in BH 4 e$ PaM m ik Gddm, 

Ctilwrftih, 1884. 

-life, J»ia« Itddntofi, CrUkd Ex 0 amdmy on Paulas KpiiUe to 
Hi Gaidhm. C!'likago, 

Apr, d Cmmdary m St* Pad *9 £pi*^ to th Gd^m* 



Z5ckler, Otto, in Kurzgejasster Kmnmmtar %u den hmiiim Sckrifim Alien 
und Neuen Testumenies, herausgegeben von Strack unci Zck'kk'r. Ntird- 

lingen, 1887. Later editions. 

Wood, William Spicer, Studies in Saint Paul's Epistle ia ike Gaimims. 
London, 1887. 

Findlay, G. G., in The Expositor's Bible, New York, s;88H. 

Baljon, J. M. S., Exegeiisrh-krUische Mrhanddini over dm brief wn Pmhs 
mn de Gdati’irs. Ley<lcn, iHHq. 

Hovey, Alvah, in An Amerkan Commentary on ike Nm Tesiameni. Fbii.i- 
delphia, iKoo. 

Perowne, E. B., in Cambridie Bible for Sekmh md Vdkges. Gafrihrkigr, 

Schlatter, A., Bet GdaterMef amgekgl fdr BihrUem. SnittgarL 

Lipaius, R. A., in Handdjmmniar &um Nrum fesUmmt, Imirhritrf von 
fl. J. Iloltemann et nL Freiburi;, 

*Ram«ty. W. M., A Mister kd Comnwdmyon SL Paul's Epislk In ike Gala • 
tiam, I/Hulon and New York* u>oo. 

Ecndall, Ftt^derirk, in The Expositor's Greek TmUmenL vol, III Lomltiti 
and New York, 

BcaiWHd, Wilhelm, in Die Sehriften des Memn TerJammii, Itidtitiicffn 
1907. ite Aid!., ifk>8. 

Williams, A. L., in Camkridge Greek Peniammt. C ’arnhriilMf , t*|fo 

Adrney, W, F,, in The Nnv Ceniurv Hibk, Faiiiilnirnln 10*1, 

*Eiiimel, C„*yril In MmkPs Commentary^ nlitr*i hv fiawwii Waller, 
don, if)U. 

MwKfn^c, W. Ih., in Wesimmiier Nm Traiameni. t#|i 1 

OIrdteiliirie, R, B,, St, Paul's Elpistk m ike Gdaikm, iiii.i 


I. T»f irf mt Fwmir. 

Ptrrot, r«#ciifw, ih (Mulk Prmimk Btmma. 

SIrifrI, (klaiim $eim mien Vktkimgmdifuim, in Akfk , trd XI4. 

CMiafti, WiillWfl, i/bif tik fiaiiomdiiMI dtr kkimuklk^km Gdakm, iii 
TkSlm&f., lAjk 

E»ll» Ifii.f III mnlet Pdkmsls in dee i « 

in Ifpf,, v« 4 , XVIII, iHii. 

Clinrtl* 'E fi* of Mdk, l» %, i%|. 

Ckiiiitii* Curl, Mmmlm des GSMrfMefm, In 

Vcitew, Clyilt W., imSim of th iM^im In ml Hi f%i 

Clltfi, W»kiimMMiMkeG^kmi Iti t%i 

Ewii«y, W» M,, ffc of Sg m»S Ike IndSU ¥f 4r;|i, 

ift Miudk BiMim 4 mi. IV* 1 ^, 


Ask with, K. 11 . , The Epistle to the Galatians. An Essay on its Destination 
and Date. London, 1899. 

Weber, Valentin, Die Adressaten des Galaterbriefes. Beweis der rein-sHd- 
lichen Theorte, Ravensburg, 1900. 

Stcinmann, Alphons, Der Leserkreis des Galaterbriefes. Mtinstcr i. W., 1908. 

Moflatl, J., Destination of Galatians (Review of Steinmann, Leserkreis des 
Galaterbriefes), in AJT., vol. XIII, 1909. 

2. Thk Date ot the Epistle. 

Meister, Kritmhe ErmUtdung der Abfassungszeit der Brief e des heMim 
Fatdus. Regeniburg, 1874. 

Clemen, Carl, Die Chromlogk der pauUnischeft Brief e aufs Neue unkrsuchL 
IMU\ 1893. 

Rendall, Frederick, The Galatians of St. Paul and the Date of the Epistle, in 
Expositor, Ser. IV, vol. IX, pp, 254-264, 1894. 

Ask with, E. H., The Epistle to the Gdatiam. An Essay on its Destination 
ami Date, l^ondon, 1S99. 

Weber, Valentin, Die Ahfassung des Galaterbriefes vor dem ApostelkonzU. 
Ravensburg, 1900. 

Briggii, Emily, The Date of the Epistle of St. Paul to the Galatians, in Nm 
WofM, voL IX, X900. 

Aberle, Ck^ondogk dm Aposkls Paulus von seinm Bekehrung bis zur Ahfas^ 
sung des Gdaterbrkfes, In BZ., vol. I, 1903. 

Chromiogk dej w4 poskls Paulm vom ApostelkonzU bis zum Mdrtymtode 
des Pmtm in Rom, In BZ., vol III, 1905. 

Round, I )ouglii»s, T he Date of St. Paulas E>pistk to the, Galatians. Cambridge, 


Steinmann, Alphtinf^, Dk AbfassuHgszeU des Galaterbriefes. Mtinater i. W., 
U)Qih With extensive biblk>grHphy. 

3. VtVMinmmm and Integrity. 

Stffl, Rudolf* Der GaMerhrkf mtk seiner EleMkeii untersucM, nebstkriimhen 
ilmerkmigen sh dm pauUmsehen HaH0rkfen, Berlin, iBSS. 

Lifsdfffiafiii, Rtidtilf, Dk ikklMt der paidmmhin Bmpthrkfe gegm Sleeks 
U mdumwsm'k wrihekiigt. Zurich, 1889. 

Vrdler, I)., !Me ComposUkm der pmUnkchen llauptbrmjf. Vol L TUbm- 

llerfilitrd, The Present Statm of the Inquiry comermng Ike Gmidm* 
of Ike Pmdim Epidks. C'hirtgo, 1B97; alio in dJT., vol. I, 1897. 

F«r further mltfemm, fiee pp. h%lf. 

4. Tiir. Tr.ict or the Ewstlk. 

Zitfiiier, Friedflih, Mur TfxtkrUik des Guiakrkrkfm, In ZwTk, iSli, itti* 

iilptt, J* M. S., ik ifM dm kkmn im Pauim, etc. Utrecht, 18S4* 



Corssen, Peter, Epistola ad Gaiatas ad Fidem opiimarum Cmikum Vuigaim 
recognovU Prokgonwnis instrwcU VtdgaMm cum anii^uiofikus W^'siaMtbus 

camparamL Berlin, 1885. 

Zimmer, Friedrich, Der Gcdakrbnef im aUlakinmken Texi ds GmndhgefMr 
einm textkriiischen Apparaius der veim Ldim, Kllnigsberg, 1887. 
Weiss, Bernhard, Die pauHnuchcu^ Brief e uud der Hehrderbrief im krkMi^ku 
Text. Leipzig, i8g6. 

, TextkrUik der pmdiniseken Brief e, in Texk u. Ihikrxmkimgm (k- 

schicMe d. aUekrisUkMn Literaiur, voL XIV, 

Hemphill, W. L., Codex Coxkmm of the Homiim of Chrysmiom tm Epk$’> 
Siam and hk Camme.fiiary m Gddmm. Norwricni, 

See further refertne/^s in Emyc. Bib., vol. II, ruL 

5. The Aitostowc CoNfKREHcrK amp Er 

Bertheau, Carl, Fdniie Bemerhmgm ik Skik (kL j md ihr VerMinin 
SMf Apaskigeschkhk, ilamhurg, «%4. 

Holtmann, IL j., Der Apmkkimwnt, in Zu'Tk, fB8i, 

Zimmer, Friedrich, Gdaierbrkf und A pasklgesM Me^ |8II^ 

IlilgenCeld, A., Dk mimien VeHheidiier det ApfnkMrerfk, In Zfi’fl., i%i. 
l>obs«:hCit35, Ernst von, PmMeme dex apoikB%rken F.midkn. fiy»4. 

VdUer, f>., Piudun md seim BriV/r. Sfnwhiirg, 

KrrywibilhL J., Der A pastel Padm und ik iJegemeinde, in ZnllF., iiin?. 
Bacon, B. W., /Lii wrsm GakiMm: Th Vrm #?/ Apaxkdk in 

AJ1\^ voL XI, 0^07. 

Fa* further refereacw see |i, aliv, md Li|«lita, ap. ed. mp. 


Itelilcn, Carl, Zum Emm^dium in Pamim m, Peiem. ii4i. 

Dm iimmidmm 4 m Pa^m. *rh. It Berllfi, 

Sahatiisr, A., IJAp^m Fiml. 4 ' mm iiiMkitf de i>i Pemk. Ewrfe* 

31I al„ i«70. E. T. by A. M* tirilirr, i%i , 

Pirlflerer, Hi to, Dm PsdMmm. Iifliialg, iHij, E. f . hf Edmml 
yinflop, 1877, 

Ciff, Stniiifl, is Ndim ie iM Fai dam AVIm lirfi 4 e TM^gk 
MiMifm, Akn^i^^i, tHM. 

GM, Juliwif*, Dm hMigi (hkl im dm #1 

IWIf, ism 
Ewlim* 0lte* Bk 


Stfvrw, Cmtm Tto FaMm Tk^$y, Mf# 

0 «l«* MiwkI, II# p4^i^i0 wm iwl w 
Frrflnifi, il« Alii,, i%i, 

Wclmrfi iM§ At Fmim. i%|. 


Bruce, Alexander Balmain, SL Paulas Conception of Christianity. Edin- 
burgh and New York, 1894. 

Teichmatin, Ernst, Die patdinischen Vorsiellungen von Auferstehung und 
GericM und ihre Beziehung zur jUdischm Apokalyptik. Freiburg, 1896. 

Somerville, David, St. PattVs Conception of Christ. Edinburgh, 1897. 

Simon, Theodore, Die Psychologic des Apostels Paulus. G5ttingen, 1897. 

Wernle, Paul, Dcr Christ und die SUnde bei Paulus. Freiburg, 1897. 

Feine, Paul, Das gesetzesfrek Rvangdium des Paulus. Leipzig, 1899. 

Thackeray, Henry Si. John, The Rdation of St. Paul to Contemporary Jewish 
TkougM. l,x)ndon, 1900. 

Mommsen, Theodor, Die Rechtsverhdltnisse des A postds Paulus^ in ZntW.i 

Wcmlc, Paul, Die Anfdnge unserer Religion. Tiibingen, 1901. 

Feine, Paul, Jesus Chrlstus und Patdus. Leipzig, 1902. 

BrUckner, Mardn, Die Entstehung der patdinisekm Christologie. Strassburg, 

Vos, Gerharclus, T/ie Alleged Legalism in Paul's Doctrine of Justification, m 
PThR., 1903. 

Sokolowski, Emil, Die Begnfie Gekt und Leben hd Paulus. Gdttingen, 1903. 

Kenney, H. A. A., Si. Paul's Conception of the Last Things. New York, 

Monttil, S. Esmi sw h Chrkiohgk de Saint Paul, Paris, 1906. 

Anml, Jean, M Notion de V Esprit, sa Gmise et son Evolution dans la ThSologk 
Ck^Mknne, Paris, 1907. 

DuBose, William Parcher, The Gospd according to St. Paul. New York, 

Ohw'hfwaki, Wilhelm, Dk Wurzdn der pauUnischen Christologie. ICdnigs- 
herg, ii) 0 (h 

Maclntmh, Dotiglaii C., The Pragmatk Element in the Teaching of Paul, in 
ri/r, vol. XIV, low. 

Ciariliier, IVrry, The Rdlgiom F^permnee of St, Patd, New York, 1911. 

Drwhk, E. C., Primiiim Christian Eschatology. Cambridge, 19x2. 

Ikiyiimm, A, de, Im iM #1 h EoL Paris, 1912. 

Williams, E. J, Wataon, A Pkafor a Recomiderathn of Sk Paidk Dodrim of 
jMflifimiion, lamrlon, 191a. 

Weiirr, Cdllh Plion, Der Vergdiungsgedanke hd Paulm. Gdttingen, 1912. 

E«tritri, S. K«*wdl, flm Ckrkldogy of Sk Paul, lamdon, 1912. 

WfskolC F, ft., Sk Pad and Jmiificatim. lajndon and New York, 1913. 

Prat, ¥, £4 Tkiidoik ie Saint Pmk Paris, 1913. Contains blMl^mphy. 

Itfiimy, W^ l-L, of Pad in Term of ih Present Day. Lon- 

lioa, 191 1, 

liatib* Willisiii liftiry rilne, Tk Padim idka of F&Uk in Ik Mddkn to 
JmhkJirikmkik Migmn, Cambridge, 1917. 

iltifpfti W tk» Mdigim md TJMogy of Pad. Mnbmihi 1917- 



I. Salutation^ including the assertion of the writer^ s 
apostolic commission 

The apostle Paul, writing to the churches of Galatia (who 
had received the gospel from him, but were already, under 
the influence of preachers who held a different type of Christian 
thought, on the point of abandoning the gospel as Paul had 
taught it to them to accept the teachings of these other preach- 
ers), affirms in the very salutation of the letter his direct com- 
mission as an apostle from Jesus Christ and God the Father, 
making mention also in this connection, doubtless as against 
the declaration insinuation of his opponents that only a per- 
sonal follower of Jesus could l)e an apostle, of the fact that the 
Christ still lives, having l>cen raised from the dead by the 
Father, invoking ujK>n them grace and peace from God the 
Father and the Ia>rd Jtrsus Christ, he adds to this usual clement 
of Ills t»pistolary salutation a characterisation of Jesus Christ, 
einpliaslsliig his mission of Saviour of men from their sins, as 
against the c*onception of law as the means of salvation, which 
tlie preacliers ivho had surcmled him in Galatia hdrl 

Ptfiil, tm iipo%tli\ not fnm men nor through mm^ but through 
Jfsm Christ and Ctui ike Father who raised him from the demf ^mid 
ait ikr imihrm th&i are with me, to the ckmehes of (ialaiia : ^gram 
ytm ami pern e from Gmi our Father amt ike Lord Jesus CkrisL 
%#<i gam for our sim^ that he might #Wif»rr m out of 

ike prmmi mM mrording to the will of our God aM Father 
Ho wkm$ if ike glory for 4W- Amen, 




1. IlauXo? (iWcTToXo?, “ Paul an apostle.” By the addition 
of the word ivir 6 crrd}^ to his name, at the very opening of the 
epistle Paul claims to be one who is divinely commissioned to 
preach the gospel of Christ and authorist;d to plant Christianity. 
The apostleship as conceived by him involved the idea of the 
church oecumenical, Christianity as an organic whole, not sim- 
ply isolated centres of effort, and of divine appointment in rela- 
tion to it. To the apostles was committed the task of laying 
the foundations of the church (i Cor. j*- “> Eph. 3’*) and among 
those who were endowed with the idfts of the Spirit for the 
builchng up of the church they constituted the highest rank 
(x Cor., chap. 12, esp. v. *•; c/. Eph. ”). These facts gave 
to them a responsibility and right above that of atiy other clasa 
in the church. While this was apparently generally rectjgnisted 
there was much controversy over the question to whom this 
responsibility and right belonged. In Paul’s view they Ixdonged 
neither exclusively to any individual nor to a college of a{X)StIes 
as such. The function of the apostle, neither limited on the 
one side to a locsil church, nor extendwl on the other to the 
whole world, was defin©! as respects each a{>ostle or group of 

..I!.,-,?.... . 


I, I 

of dignity, but involves an assertion, the maintenance of which 
is essential to the purpose of the letter. Cf. i Cor. 2 Cor. i* 
Rom. I Thes. 2«, etc. 

ovK hiT hvBp&rsranv ovS^ St avBpdnrov “not from men nor 
through man.’’ The first phrase denies that Paul’s apostleship 
had a human source, the second that it had come to him through 
a human channel, by human agency. Paul claims not only to be 
an apostle, but to have an apostleship which is in no sense in- 
direct, dependent, or secondary. This fact is important for the 
understanding of the whole personal portion of the letter. It is 
evident that his opponents were substantially in agreement with 
Paul himself in holding that the right of self-directed presenta- 
tion of the gospel, and the laying of foundations, belong^ to the 
apostles as a definite class in the church. Apparently, also, 
they held respecting apostles much the same view which Acts 
j**- ” represents Peter as holding respecting the Eleven, viz.: 
that authority to add to the number lay with the Jerusalem 
church- With this idea of the basis on which additions to the 
Eleven were to be made they apparently associated the view 
that any one whose teaching differed from that of the Jerusalem 
church, in which the influence of James and the Twelve was 
dominant, was either an altogether unauthorised and false 
teacher, or a renegade as-sodate or representative of the Twelve 
and a pervcrter of the true teaching; in either case no true 
apostle. It is not wholly clear in which class Paul’s critics had 
placed him. But die nature of his reply, in which he denies 
with emphads any kind of dependence on men in general (i** “), 
or the ap<Btles in particular (i**- ”), combined with the facts 
mention^ in in themselves considered, makes it probable 
that his opponents looked upon him, not indeed as having Iwn 
commissioned m an apostie by the Twelve, but as one who hav- 
ing received instruction from them hat! perverted their teach- 
ing, and thereby deprived himself of all right a.s a Christian 
teacher. His claim to be an apostie they would doubtless have 
treated as wholly groundless. This denial of authority he an- 
swers, not as Barnabas or Mark might have done, with the 
a«rtion that he was true to Um teaeWnf of the Twelve, Imt 


by afl&rming that he possessed an independent apostleship, neither 
derived from a human source nor through a human channel. 

The preposition expresses source in its simplest and most general 
form; hence it is the most natural preposition to use to express clearly 
the idea of source as distinguished from that of agency expressed by 
By o(i% diz* . , , avGpt&'Tcou the apostle denies definitely and specifically 
that either the source or the agency of his apostleship was human. 

The phrase ou5c dcTc’ <iv6pt5x<t)v is evidently qualitative, denying human 
origin in the broadest possible way without of itself directing the mind 
to any particular persons. Even the generic plural with the article, 

av0p6)xot, is used very freely in N. T., not to denote the totality 
of the race, but in reference to any group of men thought of as actually 
existing, though unnamed and unidentified. See Mt. '•> 

Rom. 14^8 1 (2:or. Col. 2*- =2, noun without the article is more 

clearly and emphatically qualitative, being nearly equivalent in the 
genitive to the adjective “human,” or with e? or dx6 to the phrase 
“of human origin.” Sec Rom. xdaav . . . dScxiav dv0pcf)x(i)v, 
“every form of human iniquity”; i Cor. 2^ p.*?) . . . ev dvepoWv 
dXk* ev 6eou, “not in human wisdom but in divine power”; also 
Phil. 2 7 Mt. 15'' 2x25. 26. It is in this broad sense that Paul uses the 
phrase here. Yet vv. leave no doubt that in using it he has 
especially in mind the primitive apostles, or the Christian church In 
Jerusalem, in which they were the dominant influence, it being from 
this source that his opponents would hold that he ought to have derived 
his apostleship in order to make it valid. In like manner, although 
the singular is much less commonly used with qualitative force than 
the plural, oOSe Bt' dvOp(i)xou is probably to be taken simply as denying 
human agency, and is better translated “^through man” than “through 
a man.” Cf. Acts 1722 Rom. i®* 3® Gal. ^2 2®. 

Though it is evidently no part of the apostle^s purpose in this verse 
to set forth his conception of the nature or mission of Christ, yet his 
language indirectly and partially reflects his thought on that subject. 
The antithesis between o5SI Bt^ dev0p(i)TCou and Btd ^iTQaou Xpccrxou, even 
though to the latter is joined %od Oeou xaxpB*;, and the very fact of the 
close association of Ttjctoo Xpeaxou with Oeou xaTpdg after the one 
preposition Btd, combine to indicate that Paul distinguished Jesus 
Christ from men; not indeed in the sense that he denied that he was 
man (cf. i Cor. 1521), but that this term did not state the whole, or 
even the most important truth about him. Even had Paul believed 
that his apostleship came from God through his fellow apostles, he 
could never have written ouB^ dv0p(i&xou, dXXd Btd Tdiv dxoaT(SXo)v 
xal 6 soG xaTp6(;, or even dXXd Bed t<Sv dxooxBXtov xal dxB 0sou %aTp6q. 
See detached note on IlaTi^p as applied to Gody p. 384, and on The 
Titles and Predicates of Jesus, p, $g3m 


h I 

The change from the plural, devBpciicov, to the* singular, dvOpc&wou, is 
probably purely stylistic, it being natural to think of a possible human 
source of authority as composed of a group of men, and of tlie agent 
of its transmission as a single person. The plural may, indeed, be in 
some measure due to the fact that the source of authority which he 
had particularly in mind to deny was a group, the apostles. But there 
is no corresponding explanation of the singular. Zahn interprets oiiSi 
<iv0p<l)xou as a denial of a charge that he had received hi.s apostleship 
through a certain unnamed person, most probably Barnabas. But 
this view overlooks the fact that Paul is here denying, not that he 
ret't‘iv<‘cl his jipostleship in the way in which they alleged he had, but 
that he had ohtairied it as they alleged he (not having been one of the 
original group) must have received it if it were genuine. They did not 
say, “ You received your apo.stleship from men, and through a man, 
therefore it is not genuine,” but “ You should thus have received it,” 
and Paul’s an.swer is that he received it in a way far above this, which 
ma<le human source and human agency wholly superfluous. 

Sti "Iv^crov Xpt(rrov teal deov Trarpdf; “but through 
Jt^sus Christ and Cod the Father.’^ Three facts are specially 
noticeable in reference to this expression: (i) the use of Bid 
rather tlian itird, indicating that the apostle is speaking not 
simply of a source of his apostleship between which and him- 
self there inl<‘rvenes an agent, but of the channel through 
which it came to him, or of the immediate source of it (see on 
meanings of Bid below); ( 2 ) the addition of /cal 0/sov ^nrarpik to 
*b/<roO Xpiarou, showing that he is not thinking simply of the 
agency ihnnigh which his apostleship came to him, but also 
of the source, than winch, being ultimate, there can be no higher; 
(\} the governing of both substantives by the one preposition 
but once expressed, showing that Jesus Christ and God the 
Fatht^r are not Si^paraled in his mind as sustaining different rela- 
tions to his H[K>Ht!eHhip, but are conceived of jointly and as sus- 
tiiining or^? relation. 'I'aken together, therefore, the whole ex- 
pfesshui Imtrs the meaning *Mirt*.ctly from Jesus Christ and 
(iod the Father.” Had he thought of Christ as the agent and 
( b»d as the mntiT he must have written Btk 'Iffaov Xpicrrov /cal 
Awh ikoH Trarpfk; if of (hhI and ('hrist, as jointly source cmly, 
Am Xpicrr&O ml Omv irarpefe, which, however, would 

rif»t have {umislied a projnrr antithesis to Bi* Ap6pdyftw^ since 
it would have left ojwn the p«M$ibility of a human channel. 



Aid with the genitive, in addition to its use with reference to spatial 
and temporal relations, expresses means or instrument, which with a 
personid object merges into the idea of agency; but in three ways: (a) 
Expressing mediate agency. This use of the preposition grows natu- 
rally and most directly out of the spatial sense of the prepodtion 
through,** the governed substantive being thought of as standing 
between the source of power and the person or thing affected, and as 
transmitting the power. See, c. g., Rom. i» s* i Cor. ei freq* (b) 
The idea of mediateness failing into the background or diap|>caiing, 
is used with a word denoting that whit*h is at the same time source 
and agent; in such cases, while the pre^iosition itself i^rhaps cxpresscj 
only agency, the conception of mediateness implying something lichind 
the agent is lost, and the fact that the agent is also source is icpar&taly 
expressed or implied In the nature of the cim*. See Th, .f. f, A, 
III i and such i^assages as Rom. t Cor. tK (c) The Idea of 
agency merging into that of conditioning cause (vix. that which, though 
not the instrument of the action, or Its ultimate source, h ttec:ei«&ry 
to its accomplishment), h used with reference to that which, so to 
ifjeak, stands behind the action and rende« It posallilc. So, |,| 
Acts I* Rom. I* i Thes. 4’. 

In the phnwe 5 t* 811& evidently exprenies ai;enry, 

since source li separately expreaseil by die* and the thought 

of man m a ronditloning t-auM standing l»eliind ami rrmlering 
the action by which Paul l^erame an aiHMtlr bided by the olivloii!* 

miutt of the faetts. But the Ikl: with XfuttoO, though «vi* 

dently by tht of M witli la iwrdi rather willt 

the »t!ond mtaninf (b). The id« of medkientiw k not by 

my antithttlcal and In mpect to l«©il which i*i abio gov* 

mi^I by thli same ftk, the kka of metlkteneas h exrltiil«i ^liire il 
ran not kJsupptmHl that the aiamle think 1 of a mmt uliititaie «>tirre 
than CW of which l» the agent.* Nor h ti iirotmhle that, the Mm 
of mojkieiie« k piwenl even in nwfiei^t to *lt«« Xiwwil. tiiire 
aelther ii uiCfl with nor k iil even befuff' It ; 

itisteail ih« two mhumikm are rliarly kuiiid togeiher iitulrr ilie 
pivrnimnot of one prrfwlllon, whiih prolmtily llmrrfiifr hm lliit mmw 
force witli ^th of thtw, 'fhr whole plira« ItJi 
k iiTOftiiaily antlihetkal not to IP only# litil to M 

IP belfl^ Iht p^ilvt corriliitive of ih® r i#* , , . 

T»0 aMp l« m*p^, ** who r»J«tl him from ihe 

dtesd.'’ By tW* eharaittmsation of 0«*fl Caul rcmiml* hi» 

* C/s Wfe* 1 41 1 14I ^ fi i$m Mk m#m§, t 4 ii *sf # §§^ 

II* lib .paeiig ti 

mm Is citAitd hill %f tad lliwii# Owd* tlWi pot* il* #*^1 bf to ^ 

Wftf Ibi miMUei p#ifw tfcii 


I, I 

readers, who may have been told that Paul could not be an 
apostle because he was not a follower of Jesus in the flesh, that 
Jesus rose from the dead, and that it was the risen Christ who 
had given him his commission. 

Of the apostle’s motive for adding this expression there have been 
many theories. See a considerable number of them in Sief. That of 
Wies., who regards the reference to the resurrection as intended to sub- 
stantiate on the one hand the superhuman nature and divine sonship 
of Jesus, which is implied in 068^ 8t' dv6p((>TT:ou and in the association 
of Jesus with the Father, and on the other hand the fatherhood of 
God, intrudes into the sentence a Christological and theological inter- 
est which is quite foreign to its purpose. The words o58^ . . . Tavgfie; 
undoubtedly reilect incidentally the apostle’s conception of God and 
(Christ, but they are themselves introduced for the purpose of estab- 
lishing the miun point, Paul’s independent apostleship, and it is wholly 
improbable that the addctl words, tou iYifpocvrot;, etc., were injected 
to confirm the incidentally reflected thought. Sief. himself, taking in 
general the same view, goes beyond probability in supposing that the 
phrase conveys a reference to the resurrection of Christ as that through 
which God manifesteni his paternal love to the Son in the highest de- 
gree and estahllnhed him in the full 8tatu.H of Son, this fact being in turn 
the basis on which Paul’s call into the aijostleship is made possible. 
I’he evident emphasis of the sentence upon Paul’s aj>ostleship, its in- 
dependente and its validity, makes it improbable that there underlay 
it, imexpr«m*d, any such elal>orate and indirect reasoning. Nor is the 
fact that Tou limits Otou x«Tp6»; sufficient to set this objec- 

tion aside. Having, according to hk usual custom (enforced in this 
casw* by nfHn-ial reasons) joined the names of Christ and God closely 
together, the only way in which he could then make reference to the 
fiK'l of the resurrection without Inconvenient circumlocution was by a 
pliram* limiting flioO A similar objection holds against most 

of the ifiterpretathms enumerated by Sief., and against that of Beet, 
wlifi introtlures the thought that the Father, when raking Jesus from 
the dead, with a view to the proclamation of the gospel thraughdtA 
the world, was hittwelf taking part ijersonally in the mission ^ j Ae 

11 ti; word lyilpM is Faulk regular term for the rtWng from the 
He it In this sense 35 times, hx to instances In tkt active, 
ill js ill tl» fiiwdve CrmhHlve-of F^ph. and the lawtorak), only twice la 
any other neii.%* CRom, S3» i%ll. employs Mmpx of rking 

frtiitt ili« deml in i Then, 4**- f only* In the and Acts both 

term itf ii^i with apprroiimalely etjual frequency, except that Mt* 
baa a dwWctI preference for (pani.), udng but onc% 



though it appears as a variant in three other passages also. There is 
apparently little or no distinction in thought between the two terms. 
The general usage of suggests a waking out of sleep, that of 

dvtonQpLC a rising up from a recumbent position, hut this clistinrtion 
affects the terms as used of the resurrection from the dead at most 
merely in the outward form of the thought. Both verbs are frequently 
followed by lx vtxp<^)v. For iydpti> (act.), .see Rom. -F* H*' io«; (pass.), 
Rom. 6<* « I Cor. 15*®-®®. Only rarely do lx twv vixpc^v (hcc i Thes. 

where, however, AC omit t6v and WH. bracket it, and Eph. a 
quotation from some unidentitied source) and M tiSv vtxpc&v £4*) 
occur. The omission of the article is probably due to the txpmmm 
being a fixed fjrqiositional See Slaten, QuaHiaiim Nmns m 
ih€ Fauiine Epistles, p. 25, Chiciigo, £91 R. 

2» fcal oi <Tvp i^xol rtrdprm &S€X^o(, ^^ind all the tjrethren 
that are with me/' The term brethren" i.s one which acrtird- 
ing to Paul's usage and that of tlie early ChristiauH generally 
(i Thes. 2^ I Cor. 5*^ 8*®, ei freg. in Paul; jas, 1 Pet, 5W 

I Jn. 3*^ Rev. (dcm. Rom, i*; Ign. PhUud, 5^^ -mui*h less 
frequent in the early fathers than tn N, T.) usually meant 
low-Christians." See hekm* on w Tlte fart that if is Patirs 
usual hafnt to join willi hinwlf in the atklress of a letter one or 
two of his closest companiuns and fellowdatKiurers (see esp, 1 
Cor. and r/. 2 thr. 1* and </. Phil. t \ and c/, 4'*** «; 

Col I* and ef. 4*^* the distinction which he iipiirirentlv 
makes in Phil 4^* ^ kdween “‘the brethren with him" and the 
rcadent Cliristiatis, and the fact that a tenqairary sojouriirr in 
a place would more naturally refer to the residents of the {ilarr 
as ** those with whom I am staying" or more geiitTally as ”ifte 
brethren of such a place, than **fhe tiretlirrn tlisil are with 
me," makes it probable that the pitrase here designates iicii itir 
Chiisikm of die place in general (m Wits,, /aim, aiiid ik$m. 
miinltlii), but his fdbw*mi»iotiarto {so flilg,, Lift, Eil. 
Si«f*i MmtX 

' 1 % ptn'pwe ©I ihb &i hk wliii Wni^lf In 

'At wfiling tf tit hlltr dines nol tkafly If tl» thm 

imk any |wl in A# #1 tlw Mim, m 4 ## ufttlil# 

mm to distett tWr ^n* m mm tim li«y mf mh ¥mm In 
I wifw Patti i»i At S»l peiinn idfur#! in ilir twi* ^ Itpittf 
^ ©I lit iMrf (# Friiwi m 1. 1) ll k ppiliabli Ail white tit 

ly Xy 2 g 

pronoun at first includes the companions named at the beginning, they 
took no actual part in the composition of the letter, being only in the 
background of his thought, as itself shows. But in Gal. the almost 
uniform use of the first person singular for the author, not only in 
narrative passages (such as 21, as 21-14 413-15) those in which 

the pronoun might be supposed to be rhetorically used for the Chris- 
tian believer as such but in those in which the writer speaks of 

himself as such, referring to what he is at the moment saying (i** 35* *<> 

3a. U. 17 41. ». a. lo-u. is 517)^ practically excludes the possibility of 

any partnership in the writing of the letter. The first person plural is 
usually “ we Jews/* or we Christians.” Only in i » can it be taken 
as an epistolary plural referring to Paul himself (see Dick, Der schrift- 
sklkrischc Plural hei Patdtis, 1900), and even here more probably (see 
on those w.) as a designation of the apostle and his companions. But 
in 1®, at least, these arc apparently referred to, not as with him at the 
moment of writing, but when he was preaching in Galatia; and fihat 
*'the brethren with me” here referred to were his companions in Gala- 
tia is rather improbable, since had those who shared with him in the 
preaching of the gospel in Galatia been with the apostle at the moment 
of writing it is likely that, instead of there being no other reference to 
them in the letter than this obscure one, they would have received at 
least as much recognition as In i Thes. Paul gives to Timothy and 
Silas* Nor do^ it seem likely that the brethren here referred to arc 
intended to be understood as indorsing the apostle’s statements. The 
mention of them seems rather, as in Paul’s salutations generally, mainly 
at least, an art of courtesy, though doubtless carrying with it the impli- 
cation that tlif brethren were aware of his writing the letter, and were 
no! averse*: to being mentioned in it. 

Tlie questiem who these brethren were is, of course, inseparably con- 
neelcfl with the quaition where and when the letter was written. If 
it was wrltt^ to the churches of southern Galatia from Corintli on 
the Kcronci miwlonary journey (sacs pp. xlvii /,) we can name 

none who were more probably included than Silas and Timothy, 
who were with Paul In Maewionia and Achaia on thfe journey, Ms firat 
into that region (i Them, i* j** *• * 3 Thes. r* a Cor. 1** Acts ** i 8 »). 
If it mm wflilen from Antioch between the mmnd and third jburneyi, 
Tlwtithy or Titus wm very likely among those rderred to. Both ware 
with Paul on the latter journey (3 Cor. r» 3«). Titui had bmi with 
fiiiil 111 Aiillw"h Indore the writing of this letter (Gal. 2*), perhaps 
timit iliritr years lieforr, and was sent by him to Corinth In connection 
wiili ihr tniiiWa in the C^orlnthian church (a Cor. « 7® 12**), prob- 
alilf akwii three yeiir^ after the writing of the letter to the Gak- 
if It WM wfiiifii at Antioch; but his movemtnti k the Interval 
w# tm mi iwe. II It was sent from Eph«u» or Macdlo^ak, thttt k 



a still wider range of possibilities (i Cor. i’* w 2 Cor. 

That the Galatians knew who were referred to, or would be 
informed by those who bore the letter, is renderetl probable by the very 
omission of the names. On the use of the term see on 1 

rat9 itcfcXiqaiai^; rt)^ TaXartaf;* the churches of Gala- 
tia,” On the location of these churches see InirmL, p. xtl 
On the use of the wort! i/cfcX 7 }<r{a in N, see cietachecl 
note, p. 417, The most notable characteristic of fliis salutation 
is the total lack of such commendatory words as are found in 
the address of all <ither Pauline letters (see hehnv). This is 
commonly and doul)tless rightly explairu*d m reflecting the 
apostle’s perturl^ation of mind minglerl with indignation against 
the fickle Galatians. (/. on Bavfkd^m^ v. 

I and i Hiw. aro addrewtl Iv mtpl 

xal %\ipiip Xpwxii’H with aftrr in i 'ritri. In i ami 4 
(!or. the address is Toy tn Iv KopM?!*, the liwt 

letter iuiding Iv Xputi^i %k^xnl; tfim; eli |he 

Jierond ailding ah rte. None of the later Paiillfif 

kttm, from Rom. cm, have the term in fhr Init all 

those addressed to rommunities have a phnw cle‘'ngftallfi|t the mffti- 
Ikts of the ecimnmnity and always ineludinn the word 

3 . xApi<t {ifup ital €lp^wi “grsiff to you stntl ThufM* 

words form a part of fh** la*tr«li«iion whuh in «’V«*ry Paulino 
iottor is includrd in tiu* i»{K*iiin}{ Halutation, umialty forming the 
last words of it. Tlio word is {wrhaps oonniH tt'd with tl«* 
common (Jrwk salutatum with wliich alrai the Kp. of 

Jits. iK'gins {Ja.H. i', rj, May(tr, 7 *Ac Hftiatif nf Si. Jumrs, pp. pj, 
31: Arts 15®* ^3®). hut, if so, Isa dtrithsily ('hristian version of 
it. is tfie (Srwk ivord wiiich rcprwnts titr Scnntic Si*!- 

utatinn, Hebrew, DT?tf, Aramaic. twrj iaith in jwrs»jn.i! 
greeting (Lk. to* i4**) and at the fteginiung of a letter (K/r, 4*' 
5*|. Yet this trmt also takes on a deejnrr religious significance 
than it commonly hore as a salutiition amtmg the tlebrews, 
is a comprehen-sive term for that favour of Ckal towards 
men which is the basis of their salvation. It indudrs she lilesw 
of love, fortiearance, desire to save. denote* the hl««d 

■tate of welhteing into which m«n are brought and in which 

I, 2-4 


they are kept by the divine %a/ 049 . For a fuller discussion, 
see detached notes, pp. 423 and 424. The words stand with- 
out the article because the thought of the sentence calls for a 
qualitative not an individualising representation of grace and 
peace. C/., on the other hand, Gal. 

airo deov irarpo^} koX tcvpCov TTycroC ^picrrov^ from God 
our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.'^ These words also, or a 
phrase but slightly different from them, are found in the saluta- 
tion of every Pauline letter except i Thes. and Col They are 
undoubtedly to be taken as limiting both It 

is characteristic of the apostle’s method of thought that he 
joins together God the Father and Christ the Lord as jointly 
source of grace and peace. Any attempt to discriminate sharply 
their respective shares in the bestowment of these blessings 
would lead us away from the apostle’s thought. The entire 
sentence constitutes in effect a prayer for the Galatians that 
God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ may be gracious to 
them, may look upon them not in wrath, but in favour that 
brings salvation, and that (as a consequence) they may be in 
a state of spiritual well-being. 

(Concerning diov Ttarpd^^ see detached note, on JIari)p as ap- 
plied God pp. 384 and on tcvplov as applied to Christ, see 
detached note on the Titles and Predicates of Jesus^ pp. 399 Jf. 

"H|juav stands after in 33 al plu. 20 fu. demid. Chr. 

after xuplou in nUFCJHKL, 31, tc)o8, al ao fered e f g Vg, Syr. 
C|wh, hard pal.) Arm. Ctoth. Vietorin. flier.; in Boh. Aeth, in both places. 
The rxtrma! evidence b indecklve; the reading of KAP, etc., may be 
rrgiinlrtl iw non-WtfHtern md its rival m Western, or it may be Alex- 
aiidritiii and Its rival non* Alexandrian. IntrlMtc probability favours 
the real ling of HAP (after see Rom. x Cor. t* 1 Cor. i* 

Efili. Plill X’ t'ol, I® Fhm. 3 {erntra Eph. i Thes. x« i Tim. i* 
j dim. Til. 1 9 , ami transiTiptiunal probability b certainly not 
agalml if. On tlie whole the preponderance of probability k slightly 
on llie $lclf of 

4* rm Mrrm mmhu mrkp rmv ilpmprmu ‘^who gave 
tiiiiisiif for ciitr iiris.'* In Itself the expression Boumi iatrri^ 
»iy i^rfcctly welt refer to a devotion of one’s self tn service, 



but the general usage of Paul so associates the death of Christ 
with deliverance from sin as to leave no reasonable doubt that 
he here refers especially if not exclusively to Jesus’ voluntary 
surrender of himself in Ws death. See Rom. * i Cor. i s’ Gal. 
2’“. Similarly dfi. rjp.. in itself means (to achieve some- 

thing) “in relation to our sins.” But Paul’s conception of sin 
and its effects on men and the relation of Jesus’ death to it, as 
elsewhere expressed, and the following expression, irw . . , 
TTovijpov, leave no doubt that in his thought deliverance from 
sins is that which is to be achieved in respect to them. Since 
the apostle elsewhere associates the death of Jesus with de- 
liverance both from the power of sin over one’s life (Rom. 6‘''0 
and from the condemnation under which it brings men (chap. 
3«> « Rom. 3“-“ 5’- *’), either of these aspects of salvation may 
be in mind here. But as the association of the death with the 
forensic aspect is somewhat more frequent in Paul, and as it is 
this phase which is prominent in this epistle, it is probably this 
that the apostle has chiefly in mind here. On the meaning of 
afjMprCa, see detached note, pp. 436 Jf. 

On the usage of Bouvat lauT^v, see Polyb. Ifij I 

Bdi^Xte Jocmrbv clg -div **So Bolls mid he would himself 

to the matter”; lo. 6^®: 4 icl Itot 

icoXXoT? d7n]Xxtauiv«<;; “He undertook affaini regartW by nmi m ptf- 
fectly hopdess”; i Mac. and mx, from papyri md ioicrlptbns 
referred to by NEgeli,, Workchait, p. $o^ b none* of which tlo«i II m^m 
to mean to lay down one’s life. On the other hand, see Jo». i. s## 
(6*). For a discusdon of BoOvon aSteil in Ml. Ml. 

20^*, and of riiv Btlvat m Jn. see Burton, Smith, and S-mlth, 
BtbUed Ideas of Atonement^ pp. 1 14 
The preposition bclp primarily “over’* b a l«mt but 

it is not so used in N. T. Its common use there Is b Ibe ”«» 

behalf of,” “for the benefit of,” followed by a pr»iiil term, Iwe, 
e. chap. I Cor, i»» Rom. 5**^% The modifimtion of Ihii tnmidtii 
which the preposition nixwarlly undergo^ when iscfl wllh » ttatruit 
noun it a tdic force, “to aecompliii wmetling fcr, m fa 
to,” the tbbg to be aocomp^ish^ bAig fa «cli iwplW te Ibi 
imture of the tMng which atwids m the object of the With 

most abstract nouns the meanbg h app»xtomiely lit pwnwtfaft 
of”: thus fa Jn. ii<, 1% tel ‘‘tor th# proaiolfatt #r 
mmnf^tation of the gbty of God”; t Cor. i*, lmk$ 


I, 4 

xX'fiMti)?, “for your comfort, that you may be comforted”; and Phil. 
3 >', xal t!> OAetv xol th ivepyalv btekp eiSoxfa?, “both the willing and 
the working for the accomplishment of that which is well pleasing (to 
God).” Cf. also Jn. 6« Rom. rs* r6‘ 2 Cor. 13* Eph. 6« 2 Thes. r* 
Heb. 13”. With dpuxpTtfiv and words of similar import, the meaning 
“on behalf of” naturally becomes not “for the promotion of,” but “for 
the deliverance from,” or with the genitive following, “ to deliver 
us from our sins.” The possibility that the apostle had in mind a still 
more deinite meaning can for reasons given above neither be excluded 
nor established. 

K*BH33,424* al. read Mf. S*ADFGEXP al. 50 fere read xtpl. 
The latter testimony is apparently Western and Syrian. Cf. Introi. 
p. Ixxx. Intrinsic probability is in favour of 6iclp; for though Paul 
uses both prepositions with both meaningps, “concerning” and “on 
behalf of,” he employs wepf much more commonly in the former sense 
and 6x<p in the latter. 

Sttok i^i\7iTai fjiiaf} ix tov alS}vo<t rov ^vearaTOf irovypoD 
" that he might deliver us out of the present evil age.” On 
oWv and ivearm? see detached notes pp. 426, 432. The phrase 
o alebv 6 iue<rTa><i, here only in N. T., but manifestly the 
equivalent of the more usual 0 alwv oCro?, is primarily a phrase 
of time denoting the (then) present period of the world’s history 
as distinguished from the coming age, o al^v 6 pJKKoap. Its 
evil character is implied in i Cor. i®® and Rom. 12*, and ap- 
parently always assumed, but here only is the adjective Troi^/adp 
directly attached to al^v. Its position here gives it special 
emphasis.* iiiXtjTcu denotes not a removal from, but a res- 
cue from the power of. Cf. Acts 7*®* ** 12“ 23” 26”, in all which 
caM.s the emphasis of the word is upon the idea of rescue. It 
occurs in Paul’s epistles here only. Cf. Jn. 17“. The whole 
clause expresses the purpose for which the Lord Jesus Christ 
gave himself for our sins, and thus presents from a different 
point of view the thought of vvip r&p dfjutprmp 
The very presence of these words (v.^) at this point is itself 
a sttgnificant fact. In all the other Pauline letters the saluta- 
tion d<^8 with the benediction, though not alwa)^ in exactly 
the same form, and the next paragraph is introduced by an 

* At III# ija^ww , h fowwl fai mi 

II 4- 1» ♦ *** miAmif} ¥W imfft&rm 

I##, tl; II - wk» i^«i| iwt 



expression of thanksgiving or an ascription of praise to God. 
The addition of this verse with its reference to the death of 
Christ for the salvation of men is undoubtedly occasioned l)y 
the nature of the erroneous teaching which was propagated 
among the Galatians by the judaising opponents of Paul, and 
which this letter was written to combat. As in opposition to 
their personal attack on him he affirmed his independent apos- 
tleship (v.i), so here against their legalistic conception of the 
value of works of law, he sets forth even in the salutation the 
divine way of deliverance provided in ChrlsPs gift of himself 
for us according to the will of God. 

It remains to be considered whether the deliverance here referred to 
is (a) ethical, having reference to emancipation from the moral influ- 
ence of this present evil age (cf. Rom. 8*), or (b) presimt judicial, con- 
sisting essentially in justification, through the death of (rf. 

Rom. 5*®' or (c) eschatological, being deliverance from the wrath 
of God which will fall upon the wicked at the coming nf the Irftrd 
(cf. I Thcs. 5** Rom. 5*^). There is no doubt that Paul heli! the 
current Jewish doctrine of the two ages (see detached note on Af4v, 
p, 426), and though he neverldefmitely places the coming of the bird in 
judgment on the wicked and salvation for belie vera at the bouiidAry- 
line between the two ages, his language h tiwst naturally ynderstiKKl 
as implying this, and there is in any ciise no dould, that in bin thought 
salvation was achieved in the full sense not before but At the coming 
of the Lord (cf. Rom. 13^* i Thes. dL). 'Fhe asmriations of the 
phrase axe therefore eschatoloidcal. Nor can It lie urged against, the iu'^ 
terpretation of the whole expression as esc-hatologiral that the thought 
of the future salvation distinctly as such is uauiilly mmi iatfd by !*atil 
not with the death of Jesus but with his resurrerllon (»io /.iliii; cf. 
Rom. 5^0 68 1 Cor* Phil. 3*®). For though this k true, it k 
true that in several of the passages the death i* closely wwwiiitrti 
mth the resurrection, and in i Thes. 5*‘ the ddiverance friiim 
at ffie coming of the Iword (rf, v.»») is definitely taw'lr t,r» re'iutl Iforti 
the death of Christ. There are, however, few valicl objertbtii In fhe 
supposition that the reference of the phrase k chMy 
The first is the use of the wo-rd The piwirnt agf h In riifl 

at the coming of the Lord. Salvation at that mt In 

ddivmace from tha but from the wmth of G«L Ifni tkf 
tle^s ffiought at this point m it Is in Rom. dtfiiiltrly • 
logical, he would naturally have writ ten S*k«^ %*|| ir.k 

lpyfi<; T 00 0»0 Iv tri vei mpim. The ^ond fmmn ti foiiiid 

in the general atmosphere and purpose of the epistle. Its thought is 
concentrated on the way of acceptance with God in the present life; 
eschatological references are few and indirect; it is improbable, there- 
fore, that in the salutation, which bears clear marks of being written 
under the influence of the controversial situation with which the epistle 
deals, the idea of the salvation achieved at the coming of the Lord 
should fill a prominent place. As between the judicial and the ethical 
conceptions, it is doubtful whether we should exclude either (cf, on 
6xlp T. dc[L. above).* To limit the reference to the ethical phase 
would be to exclude that aspect of the significance of Christ’s death 
which the apostle usually emphasises (see Rom. 32^' 58-1° Gal. 31®), and 

which precisely in this epistle, which deals so largely with justification, 
we should least expect to be forgotten. But, on the other hand, the 
appropriateness of the words to describe the ethical aspect, and the 
absence of any phraseology expressly limiting the thought to the judicial 
aspect (as, e, g., in Rom. 8» and Gal. 3*®), seem to forbid the exclusion 
of the former. That Paul sometimes assoi'iated the morally trans- 
forming power of Christ with his death clearly appears from Gal. s®®* ** 
and Rom. 6 ^®* ” (r/. also a clear expression of this idea in i Pet. ^9). 
Probably, therefore, we must include the judicial aspect, and not ex- 
dude the ethical. That the apostle has the law chiefly in mind as an 
element of the present evil age from which the Christ by his death is to 
deliver men (see Bous. ad loc.) is improbable, not indeed because the 
thought itself is un 4 huiline (see Rom. 10®), but !)ecause the phrase 
** present evil age” is too general and inclusive to suggest a single 
ele‘inent of that age so little characteristic of it as a whole as was the 

TO 0e%Tf}fia rov deov Kal Trarph according to the 

will of our (*<kI and Father.’* Whellier these words are to be 
taken as limiting (a) Bdpro^ or (h) or (c), the whole 

complex idea expresscnl by too Scfvro^ • • * iroprjpov (7rop7)pov 
alone is manifestly out of the question), can not be decisively 
determinetl Most pnfl)ably, however, the third construction 
is the true one. Twice before in this paragraph the apostle has 
closely assoiiattxl together Jesus Christ and God the Father, 
firil m Ifiit source of his own apostleship (v. and then as the 
source of grac:e and iKMce to those to whom he is writing. 
The present phrase emphasim^s once more essentially the same 

• Til# Wri d wiwivaI from tiitt life by or IramUtioii Is Itvlf mtumlly »«!• 

hf III# h f> M* f. but 1% rMtlcff*! Improlabl# % the ««p tbe 

wm4 im al»twi awI flfcbivtly wluded by ibf wWly tta-P&uIlM ehMmtm ^ 

thi tlwttiiit titl tfc» lhf«w«b rbrift tin eartlily life ol the 



thought, afflrim-Tig that in the salvation provided for us (the 
pronouns and in v.^ include both the apostle and 

his readers) through Christ’s gift of himself for us, God our 
Father also participates, the gift and its purpose being accord- 
ing to his will. Concerning the construction of and the 

translation of 'roO 6 eov koX warpoi see detached note 

on Tia/rrip as applied to God, pp. 388 /- 

6 . ^ ^ Bd^a ek rots altavoi r&v almvoav aptriv. “ to whom be 
the glory for ever and ever. Amen.” An ascription of to 
God for the gift of Christ and the deliverance accomplished 
through it. (here only in Gal.) is frequent in Paul, with 

considerable variation of meaning. Sec Th. 5. v. and Kennedy, 
St. Paul’s Conception of the Last Things, pp. 220 ff. rt-s sense 
here, "praise,” comes down from the claa.sic times, and is fre- 
quent in N. T. The article, when occurring, seems almost 
invariably to convey a reference to something which has just 
been mentioned; in this case, no doubt, the redeeming work of 
Christ. Cf. Rom. 11“ Eph. 3’* Phil. 2 Tim. 4" Ilch. 13*' 
I Pet. 4“. Contrast Lk. 2^* (where, however, the p<H-tic form 
may rather be the cause of the omtoion of the article); Rnrn. 
IS’' Phil. 2“. The generic (or intensive) force of the article, 
such as apparently occurs in Rev. 7” and perhaps in a Pet. 3'*, 
is possible but less probable than the demonstrative force sug- 
gested above. On ek t, at. t. aleomv, see detached note on 
AltitV, p. 426. 

’Aiitv (Heb. BK, an adverb derived from "to be firm," 
Hiphil, “to believe," “to trust") is carried over into the N. T. w- 
cabulary from the Hebrew. It is used In O. T. «« confirralr^ an riath 
(Num. s” et at.), as the solemn conclusion and confirmation ot adosol* 
ogy (Neh. 8* Ps. 41“, etc.), and otherwise. The Lxx usually 
late it by T^vocto, but occiMsfonally transliterate {t Chron. ifi’* Neli. 
5“ 8* I Esd. 9” Tob. 8‘ la**), but none of these in.stanc«a are at the end 
of a do»5tegy or benediction. This usage, of which Mac. 7** («e a!#« 
4 Mac. tS”) apparently fundshes the earlleafe mtampk, may have ariwo 
frtmi the cusiton of the congr^tion responding "Amen" to the pmyer 
offered by the leader. Cy. Neh. 8« x Cor. 14", and Frame on 1 Thei. 
3”, also M. and M. Vac. s. p. 

On the rdatioii betww the salutations of the Pautlae ai^ other 

I, 4-5 17 

N. T. letters, and the methods of beginning letters current among 
Greek, Roman, Jewish, and early Christian writers, see extended and 
instructive note in Hilgenfeld, Der Galaterbriefj 1852, pp. gg ff.; also 
respecting the classical Greek and Latin forms, Fritzsche on Rom. i 
Wendland, Handhuch zum Neuen Testament^ III 3, Beilage 15, pp. 
4.11 ff,; Ziemann, De Episttdarum graecarumformulzs, in Diss, phil. HaL 
XVIII 4, tgio. Respecting the evidence of the papyri, see Lietzmann, 
Griechische Papyri^ 1905 ; Witkowski, Epistulae graecae privatacj 1 906, and 
Milligan, Selections from the Greek Papyri^ 1910. C/. Frame on i Thes. 

See also Mayor, The Epistle of St. James ^ pp. 30, 31. The following 
are typical examples: IlXdktdv TapavTfvtp e 6 xpdcTretv (Epistle 

IX, Ed. Hermann, p. 58), M. Cicero salutem dicit P. Lentulo Procos, 
(Ed. Mueller, IV i, pp. i ff.)\ ndW rdSd (Ezr. s’^); Tot? 

xax' AIyuttcov TouBafotq %a(petv ot dc3sX(pol ol h TepocxoX6- 
poti; TouBaloc xal ol xfj 'IouSa(a<:, elp-fjVTQv dcyaOi^v (2 Mac. i^). 

x«l ol Iv *lou^algi xal *?) ytpouofa xal Tou&«<; 'Apta'copo6X(i> • • • xodpetv 
xal byialviiv (2 Mac. i*®). KXa6Sto<; Auarfa<; t^) xpaT^enrep *f)YS(J>*4vt 4>tX(xt 
Xafpttv (Acts 23^*; r/. Acts’*i5®*). TwdeviQc; irate 2fxxXTQcr{at«; iraTc Iv 
Tf} *Aaiq^^ x6tgt<; xal flpfjvtj (Rev. i*). noXGxapxoi; » • • i:f^ IxxXToafcy 
toO OtoO xapotxotiqf} <l>tX{’rcxot<;- IXsoc 6(Jtlv xal eip'ftviQ xapdfe 6eo5 
(Polyc. PhU.). The following, from Milligan’s Selections^ show the 
usage of the papyri: IIoXuxptJixTjc irfiit xaxpl ’AxoXXc&vtoc Oto- 

Xt|juj{£«at xatpl x«^P®tv. TXap(<av [a] ’^AXtirt T^t dSttXcpi^e xXelcrm 
X«xip8tv. 04f*)v TuptJcwwt Tfi>t iriptMiyc<5xo>t xXsIoira xa^P^tv. 

Thttse ami other examples cited by the writers above referred to 
show (i) that both (ireek.s and Romans, if not also the Hebrews, fre- 
tpiently bcgait a letter with the writer’s nmne; (2) that the naming of the 
iwrson «jr |H*rsons atldrt*SHed, usually in the dative, but sometimes in 
the vtaative, was the general custom among Greeks, Romans, and 
Hebrews; (3) that to these two It was customary among the Hebrews 
to aiid the word or if writing in Greek, among the Greeks 

XaCpiiv, with or without the addition of Xly^t? tind among the Romans 
soliilm with or without dktt; (4) that the early Christian writers fol- 
lowed In general the usages then current in the Roman world, but in 
tlir of that liberty which thest! usages themselves sanctioned, 

uinililficfl elements clerlvttl on the one side from the Gritek custom and 
cm the other from the Hebrew, and iiitrcKluced also distinctly Christian 
rlemcnts. As a r«»uit there seems to have been created almost a 
flaiitlard C^hrktkn form (note the resemblance between the mlutation 
of the Pauline letters, those ascribed to Peter, 2 and 3 Jn., the: sitluta- 
lloa of Eev, t\ anil tliosie useil by Clem. Rom. and Folycar|>), yet one 
wliicli wa» fmily mmliliwi by each writer in ailaptation to the particular 
anti |ier«nis iwldresmL Note the variations from the usual 
form la J«. and the Igiiaika letters, and the lack of salutation in i Jn. 


and Heb., though these latter are perhaps rather literary epistles than 
letters in the stricter sense. See Deissmann, Blhk Studies, chap. I, 
In the creation of this general Christian form for beginning letters, the 
dates of the literature would suggest that Paul exerted a special influ- 
ence, though there can hardly have been any slavish, perhaps not even 
a conscious, copying of his form by others. 

2. Expression of indignant surprise at the threatened 
abandonment of his teaching by the Galatians^ in 
which is disclosed the occasion of the letter 

In place of the expression of thanksgiving or of praise 
to God with which in all the letters that bear Paulas name, 
except I Tim. and Titus, the paragraph immediately fol- 
lowing the address and salutation opens, there stands in this 
letter an expression of surprise and indignation; surprise that 
the Galatians are so quickly abandoning the gospel as they 
had received it from the apostle, and are on the point of accept- 
ing from others a perversion of it; indignation at thew who 
are troubling them and seeking to pervert the gospel of the 
Christ. In this expression there is disclosed, as usually in the 
second paragraph of the apostle's letters, the <x:caHion of the 

«/ marvel that ye are so quickly turning may from Mm who 
called you in the grace of Christ unto a dijfereni gospel, is 

not another except in the sense that there are some who are tmubling 
you and desire to pervert the gospel of the CkrisL ^But mm if we 
or an angel from heaven shall preach unto you a gospel mil in 
accordance with that which we preached to you, ki him be ammml» 
Us we said before, so nmo I say again, if any one k preacMng 
to you a gospel not in accordance with that wMch ye rectmi, ki 
Mm be accursed, ^^For am I turn seeking the fammr of men, or op 
God? Or ami now seeking to phase men t If / wmt siiil kern- 
ing mm I should mt be a servant of Christ, i ; 

6 . &n fjmrari0m0§ SmS%oB mkierm^ 

T09 ip xdpm Xpurrov marvel lt»t ye are » 
quickly turning away from him who called ym in the grace of 
Christ/' The present tense of the verb pmmi0m6i iiiilicatei 
dearly that when the apostle wrote the apostasy of the (iak- 


I, 5-6 

tians was as yet only in process. They were, so to speak, on the 
point, or more exactly in the very act, of turning. The mind 
of the apostle wavers while he writes between hope and fear as 
to the outcome (42“' 510). The word ra^^co? might conceivably 
refer to the rapid development of the apostatising movement 
after it was once begun. But it is equally suitable to the usage 
of the word to take it in the sense of “soon” (c/. i Cor. 4!“ Phil. 
jiB, 34 Mt. 5W Mk. 9’®), and it is certainly far more probable 
that the apostle is here speaking of the brevity of the interval 
than of the rapidity of the process. The point from which this 
interval, which seems to the apostle so brief, is reckoned is left 
unstated, but that of which one most naturally thinks in speak- 
ing of an apostasy is the time of the original acceptance of that 
which is now abandoned — in this case the gospel — and this is 
also suggested by awo rov KaX4(yavro<i and eh hepov evayydXcov. 

Little help is afforded by this expression towards the determi- 
nation of the date of the letter, since such a change as is here 
spoken of would doubtless seem to the apostle to have been 
quickly made if it took place at any time within a few years 
after the conversion of the Galatians. 

It is grammatically possible to take toO KaX 4 <TavTO<i as limit- 
ing Xpto-Tofl and so to render “from the Christ who called you 
in grace.” On this order of words see BMT 427; Gild. Synt. 
622, and cf. Gal. 3". The thought thus yielded would more- 
over In'; wholly appropriate to this situation, since the apostasy 
of the Galatians was from Christ and his grace. But Paul’s 
general use of the verb m^Jeo (.sec below) must be regarded as a 
decisive objection to referring the phrase to Christ (as is done 
by flier. Luth. Calv. Beng. d al.', ef. Wies. and Sief. ad loc.) or 
to Paul (sis by Paulus, cited by Wies.), and as a convincing rea- 
son for here referring it to God (so Chrys. Wies. Mey. Sief. Ell. 

The verb meaning in the active, “to tran-ifer,” “to re- 

move” (lee.r. |.,Heh. «s*) or “to alter," “to {Msrvert” (Jude 4), is used 
in the mhhllc or i»vt. with various constructions in the sense “to 
change [one's opinion)". Hdt. 7>’; lyti u,4v aJih? xpiico^i xa\ tV 
(Mnt«it®s|Mn: "1 myself am changing and altering my opinion;” 



Plato, Rep, 345 B: <J)cevepfi><; pLeTair(Oeao xal p.’i iSonccicira: *Xbange 
your mind openly, and do not [attempt to] deceive us.” Followed by 
dx6, as here, in 2 Mac. 7*^ it means to turn from,” to apostatise from,” 
jj.eTa6ip.evov dxb t6v xaTpfcov, ^^on condition of having apostatised from 
the ancestral [laws].” With xpd?, instead of si? as here, **to turn to” 
in Polyb. 26. 2K 

For various interpretations of oSt(*)<; xaxlcix;, ’see Sief. who himself 
takes it to mean “rapidly,” “swiftly since it began.” 

In fifteen passages in the letters ascribed to Paul the writer attributes 
“calling” to God (Rom. 4*’’ 8«® i Cor. i» Gal. i*» i The«. 3** 

5»« 2 Tim. I®, using the verb yuxXita; Rom. ii»® x Cor. Kph. x*® Phil. 

2 Tim. I®, using and never, except in the sense of “naming” 

or “inviting to a feast,” to any one else. The main features of the 
apostle’s conception of this divine act appear clejirly in the passages 
cited. It is in execution of his predetermined purpose (Rom. 

2 Thes. 2”' cf, 2 Tim. i ®) ; an act of grace, not in accordance with mm% 
deserts (Gal. i»»; cf. 2 Tim. i»); it is the divine initiativeof theChristita 
life (i Cor. 7^'-®’), by which God summons men into the fellowship of 
his Son Jesus Christ (r Cor. i*; c/, Rom. to live in sanctihration 
(i Thes. 4^), and peace (1 Cor. Col. 3**), and to attain unto natvatioo 
(2 Thes. 2 «), God’s kingdom and glory (r Tims. c/. al«o t Tim. 6**). 
Though always spoken of as Go<l’s act, it may tixke place through the 
preaching of the gospel by men (2 Thes. a‘^), and it k doubtim to the 
divine call, brought to the Galatians through his own pretiblng, that 
the apostle here refem. 

Paul’s use of the terms **caH” and “calling” Is in fenerdl wrh m to 
sugg^t that he thought of tho^ only m called who ob#y«I the tflvlno 
summons (see csp. Rom. of a rejectini call at least he never 

sp^s. Yet the present paamge evidently a|»eaks of the CfilatliLiis m 
on the point or in the act of turning from him who had raJlcit Ihcfti. 
TMs apostasy, moreover, the aimtie evidently regards! m a most 
serious matter, witdlly affecting their relation to Chrlat (wm tip, %***}, 
It can not therefore be utKiudifiedly affirmed that Paul con- 

ceived of “calling” as effectual in the mnm iliat all who wt» calW 
were surely datined unto eternal life. 

On the mmmng of on v.*. Modem commintAtorf l*v« 

generally given to the prqKwItion Iv either Its Imtniiiteiilii force («» 
Ih. iv, I sd), or its causal imd bml icnic (gft Th. 1 6c)* I» ri^tf 
case the grace of Christ is that which la manlleftw! In hii gift of hl«* 
for men, and li conceive of In iti rtlalloa to llidf m- 

trance Into the kin^m of God; In the latter c^, ll li Ihat oa ite 
grouml of which, by vlrltie of which, nwi me In Ihi fcr»if 
a», it k that by whkh the caJlfag ukm pket. To tie* vtewi ti^ 
k m d^lsiim obj«:tiaa dth«r ha thi us^ of ih« ”§1^ ^ 

Christ” (see 2 Cor. 8® Rom. 5“) or in the^use of the preposition 4v 
(see Th. u, 5 ,). But (a) the grace of Christ is more commonly spoken 
of by Paul in its relation to the Christian in his Christian life (see 
Rom. 16“ 2 Cor, 12® 131^ Gal. 6^* Phil. 4®* i Thes. 5®“ 2 Thes. 3‘»; cf, 
also Rom. 5% and the benedictions in connection with the salutation 
of all the letters), (b) In the expression xaXioi> Iv as used elsewhere 
by Paul (Rom. 9^^ does not properly come into account, being from 
the Lxx, and not being used in its special Pauline sense of the 

divine call into the kingdom), Iv is never either instrumental or causal, 
except possibly in i Cor. 7”, but almost uniformly marks its object as 
the state or sphere in which the one called is, either (i) when he is 
called (i Cor. or (2) as the result of his call. In this latter 

case the phrase is pregnant and bears the meaning “call to be in” 
(1 Thes. 4^ I Cor. 7» Col. 3“ (Iv Ivl 0fJ>pLa*ct) Eph. 4^; cf. Th. Iv I 7, and 
in I Cor. i® Col, 3*® 2 Thes. 2i<). Usage evidently favours the meta- 
phorical local sense of the preposition, and, since is evidently 

not the sphere in which the Galatians were when they were called, the 
pregnant use of the phrase is the more probable, (c) The sense yielded 
for this passage by taking as referring to the state in which the 
Galatians were called to be is much more suitable to the connection 
than that given by either of the other constructions. In speaking of a 
change of position on their part, it is more natural to refer to the state 
in which by God’s call they are or should be than to emphadse the 
basis or instrument of God’s call. The remarkable and surprising fact 
about their apostasy was that they were abandoning the position of 
grace, f . e., the relation towards God which made them the objects of 
the grace of Christ and participators in its benefits, to put themselves 
under law, which could only awaxd them their sad deserts. On Paul’s 
view of the nature of the change c/» 5* It is a further objection 

to the view that Iv is b.'isal that while redemi>tion is conceived of by 
Paul aji baacti on tlie work of Christ (Rom. 3«), it is difficult to suppose 
that he would sf>eak of God’s caU as being on the ground of the grace 
of Christ, It is rather his thought that the work of Christ has its basis 
In the love of God. See Rom. s*®*- is the thought that the cftU 
of God is by means of Chrkt’s grace materially easier, for the expanrion 
of this Into “the lumouncemmt of the grace of ChAt” m unwarrant^ 
by the lanptige. 

atence of the utlde before has the effect, and is doubts 
due to the Intention, of giving the word quidltative mther than 
indlddnalMng force. This In turn emphasisw the folly of the con- 
duct of the Galatlani. This shade of meaning can not well be cxpr«»ad 
la Ettgllih (which r^iulm a definite article More “grace” because of 
the pliri« that Mlowt It) except by some such peripbm»s m, “ I mar- 
vel thM ^9 Mm m quickly away from grace, tM oi Christ*” 



ei? ^repov evayyiKiov, “ rnito a different gospel.” On the 
meaning of the word ^fpovj see detached note, p. 420. On 
euar/y 4 \tov^ see detached note, p. 422. It is evident that in 
the present passage, as indeed generally in this epistle, it is the 
doctrinal aspect of the gospel that the apostle has specially in 
mind. The questions at issue between Paul and his judaiatic 
opponents did not at all concern the historical facts of the life 
of Jesus, nor did they so far as known havi; to do with the 
methods of carrying on the gosi)cI work. They pertaitu-d 
rather to the way of acceptance with God and tlie signilicance 
of the Christ in relation to such acceptance. They were thu.s 
distinctly doctrinal questions. 

The preposition el<s denotes mental direction (<f. Acts. 26*'' 
Rom. 2* I Tim. i") and in view of the meaning and of 
fjxraTidecrde signifies “towards, with inclination to accept.” 
That Paul calls the teaching of his opponents in Galatia a 
different “gospel” doubt k*.s.s reflects the fact that they clainusl 
for it the name “go.speI,” “gwid tiflings”; they may even have 
described it in contrast with Paul’s preaching, as a ditTerent 
gospel, h-epov In what sense Pan! was willing to 

apply to it the term “gospel” appears in what follows, 

7. 8 ovir loTM/ aXXo, ya/; “which is not another except in 
the sense that.” The relative & should undouhteflly In; taken 
as referring neither to emyjilXiov alone, nor to tfie whole state 
ment fjxTaTt 6 e<rde . . . tvar^y^Kiov (reasons given below), hut, 
as the manifest emphasis ujxm hepov in the preo'tHng clause 
and the use of the partly antithetical tlAXo in this clause sug- 
gests, to ^epop eiiayyiKtop taken as a single term and tiesignat- 
ing the erroneous teaching of the judaisers. 'Hie clause is thus 
a qualification of the precwling .statement, lutendtsi to e.sdude 
the possible implication that that which the Galatian-s were 
urged to accept was really a goM{M.‘t which might legit itnately he 
substituted for that which Paul preacdiwl. On d fij tnejining 
“except ” and introducing not a protasis but an exception, we 
Th. d, HI 8 c; BMT 274, 47*- On «’ m meaning “except 
that,” see Mk. 6‘ Rom. 14“, and rf. Th. d, III H b, 

eWs SkXo it lit Is taken in the nensic “tarthin* flw dwtt" by WiiiM 
(Cm, ad toe,), Grot., Rtkik., as also by Grimm (Tli. *1 III S i «), ARV. 


I, 6-7 

marg., and Ram. (first choice; see also below), 8 being in this case 
referred not to Snrspov but to the fact related in jJL6Ta'i:f0sci6e 

. . . etiayyiXiov. To this construction there are several objections: (i) 
It makes the antithesis between h:egov and only seeming and acci- 
dental, which is in view of PauFs usage rather improbable. See below 
on N. T. usage of these words. (2) It necessitates the supposition 
that Paul left the application of the term sSayY^Xtov to the teaching 
of the judaisers unretracted. (3) The reference of 8 to the whole pre- 
ceding sentence is awkward and improbable. Following immediately 
upon ^Tgpov ® 0 ayy 4 Xtov, and agreeing with it in gender and number, 8 
could scarcely be taken by the reader otherwise than as referring to 
this expression. If Paul had intended 8 to refer to the entire preceding 
clause he would naturally have written ^ (cf, 4®^) or touto ycip larcv or 
toOto 81 laTTtv.’*' (4) It gives to 06% ^IXo eJ per) the sense “not other 
than^* (denying qualitative distinction), which is unsustained by usage. 
See for classical writers jelf, 773. 5 860. 7; Kiihner-Gerth, 597 m. For 
this Idea the Lxx use o 5 >t &Xk* (Gen. 28 * 0 ? 'cf ( «= o 5 x) &Xko (Mai. 
2'^), oOx 511^ (Nch. 2 »); N. T. writers use oOjc ^JXXo<; dtXK* (2 Cor. 1*®), 
o6x if p.-!) (i Cor, 10*®), xiq ( ** o6x) ®{ pnl] (Rom- ii*® Eph. 4®), but neither 
Lxx nor N. T. use o6x dXXog 

By a still older view (Chrys., Thdrt., Luth., Beza, Beng,, Koppe, 
de W., and Hilg., cited by Sief. ad he,) 8 is referred to eOayylXiov in 
the sense of the true gospel, the relative clause is taken as equivalent 
to ydtp IcTTiv <SEXXo, and the ef pi-ft clause is taken as adversative. 
This view is now generally recognised to be erroneous, and requires no 

rrliUivt’ « might iiiciml l>e taken to refer to the exprettion 

&m aAA» «* ^1-) tifing srili intefi>retal aa meaning “not other than’' or “nothing elne than/* 
ami difrtiiiHt thi;k the ohieetUm at Siel. Uf. also Wi«.) that in that cas^e Srt munt have been 
in^ertnl, a t in i Cor. i3»*, or <ei«ri¥ omitted, at luicdly valhl In view of Mk. 6* Rom. 14**. But 
thrf# would still remain the firrit and fourtli obi«!«tioni, anti the»e, taken together, are decisive 
thk Interpridatitm. 

I ’fhr Idra of cjuAlltative non'dintinction (“not other than/* “the mme as") coum, 
w»t ilw Mine mi (nu«erk;ili ejsreption to a negative statement (“no other except/* “none 
l4«?«iilr/* Of “not For thit latter the Lxx uwoiwk lAAoe wAife (Exod. 8 “» I». 45***^ 

Brl 41); #««« Sn wkw fluent 4**), 4 aAo« {Imi. (Ita. 45**'*), d 

CM«to i»h N- T. wrilm mmt commonly ovx (or oW«t«, ei (^4 (Mt. ti**' 17* sp* 

Eiifi-i. 7’ ii«' • I ('‘or fi*, etej* once owe ^AAoe wrAifin' (Mk. i quotation Iwm Lxx), onct 
»&* fi ^4 CC#al, i»l, and once dAA*H* ov« CJa. d>*). Thtue l»t two iispres'iions most 
»»«!*!« the t»e before m In v. *, Jn, b**, bring tlw only tmt verbal parallel (wad 
»*t evfii ihi't In *irtl« of woribi found In either Lxx or N. T. But in both th«e 
wliit k rtpfwml k »ofc fiualltatlve nimriktlnctloa, but exception (rather lootely attached) 
III A p'wrsllit^ fifialive AiilmmttL They fumldi »« argument, therefore, far takiof the 
p-c^pfit ill the “ not other than/' Imt In so far as they weigh at all favour taking 

d as m eicpfUlve cUuse, qualifying the precedluf rriatlvriy complete 

wtlwr ttei M wairralng with th^ pf«a'e*ltng dAAo to mpmm a single hica, “not other 
tb*»/‘ to The ol dAAot in Jn. Acts 4% mcaaltii ^*m 

#»« 4«i 4 *wi 4 -P lAA# la Cki. in the “notliingrisi’’ creates »m« pmbabillty 

tfe*l if Patti had uttAUt ham riiie than" he would have wflttea §vWe lAM laitead of 

flm ili» itiai i^iwksre k Lxx or N. T. h IaA# wed la 1 phmit 
fttfbkit layliii ntvm% on thk argumemt. 



extended discussion. Each element of it is in itself impossible: S can 
not refer to eSaYflXiov alone in the sense of the (true) gospel, since this 
would involve an abrupt dropping from the mind of tlie emphatic ele- 
ment in the antecedent clause, and the mental substitution of a word 
(t: 6) having practically the opposite force; b oOx laxtv might possibly 
mean “for it is not,” but can not mean, as this interpretation requires, 
“there is not,” since the substantive element of S in this case altogether 
disappears; nor can el be merely adversative in force (see on i *•). 

Ram., as stated above, prefers the first of these views, but m his 
second choice translates “another gospel, which is not different (from 
mine), except in so far as certain person.s pervert the gospel of Christ.” 
Itepov sbu^yikiov he refers to the teaching of the Twelve, which Paul 
affirms to be not really different from his own; Uie {>erverters of this 
gospel, which is common to Paul and the Twelve, he 8up|Kisc» to be 
the judaisers. Aside from the question whether Paul could by this 
language convey so complex an idea, and whether Paul really regarded 
his gospel as ciuite so closely identical with that of the Twelve as this 
interpretation supposes, tlxe crucial question is whether it ikm justice 
to the relative meanings of and and Uj this cjueiitlon it 

seems necessary to return a negative aitswer, and ioiwequently to 
reject Ram/s interpretation of the imsage. See det 4 u:hal note m 
'"Ktipot; and ’'AXXo^, p. .po. 

The balance of evidence therefore .HcHims to rttpiire taking Itipov m 
meaning “different,” illo in the sense “smother” (julditional) and 
translating ^ lattv lIXXo P.t() m above, “ which is not wiollter ex- 
cept in the sense that.” The only alternative k not, with Earn., ta 
reverse this <lbtinction between ami but to that 

the two terms are entirely synonymous, the chimgc Iwiiig 4mply for 
variety of expression. In the latter cjise lasth words might amAtciitly 
with Greek usage in general mean either “amither” («micl) nmwrl- 
cally distinct, or “different.” But the intrrpretallon atlvwmtol alwv* 
is more probable than either of latter. In any vmm. d | 4 | miiiii 
its exceptive force, meaming here “exce|*t (In the mtm that)/* 

ehw 04 rapdemirrm ml 0iXjQmm ^rmrp^m 

rb evevyyiXiop rov xpt<rrov. “there are mmv wh«» are troubling 
you and desire to perwrt the goHjK;! of the Chrisit.” This is the 
firat mention of those who were preaching the other 
among the Galatians. The present tense of the verb indkato 
that they are stilt in Galatia, and that tliis letter is intended to 
a>mbat them while tJhey are in the very midst <*f their work. 
The verb rapdamt, prop. “ to ajdtate physically " (Jn. «»), much 
more frequently in N. T. means "to disturb mentally,” with 


I, 7-8 

excitement, perplexity, or fear (Mt. 2® Jn. 14^ Acts 15^^). Con- 
cerning the participle, or other attributive, with the article after 
an indefinite word like or a noun without the article, see 
W. XVIII 3; XX 4 (WM. pp. 136, 174), BMT 424, BL § 412 
(73®), Rad. p. 93, Gild. Sy/z. p. 283, Rob. p. 277. W. implies 
that is here subject and ol rap. pred.; but the attributive 
construction is more probable; cf, chaps, 2^0 32*. Observe in 
the use of OeXovre^ another indication that the Galatians have 
not yet succumbed to the influence of the judaising mission- 
aries. The troubling is a present fact. The perversion is as 
yet only a wish of the disturbers. 

(in N. T. Acts 2®“, here, and Jas. 4® only) means (i) “to 
turn/’ “to transfer,’^ (2) “to change from one thing into another or 
from one state to another”; whether for better or for worse is not in- 
volved in the meaning of the word (Dcut. 23® Sir. ii®u 38 i); yet when the 
thing changed is right and good, to change it is naturally thought of as 
being to pervert it. 

On the meaning of sec detached note on The Titles and 

Fr^kodes of Jesus^ III, pp. 395 jf. Note that we should here trans- 
late “the gospel of the Christ,” ^ptorTdi; with the article being here, as 
usually, and always after xh not a proper name but a de- 

scriptive title, with tacit identification of the person referred to; as one 
would say “the Governor” or “the President,” leaving the hearer to 
supply the personal identification. 

8. aXXA fcal ihp ^ ayy€\o<% ovpavov eiayyeXi^f^rat 
rrap* 8 €uf}yyeXiadp^$a vplv^ hvdBepa eerrm. “ But even 
if we or an angel from heaven shall preach unto you a gospel 
not in accordance with that which we preached to you, let him 
l>e accursed/’ This strong language shows how serious Paul 
considered the differences between his gospel and that which 
the Jewish Christian preachers were promulgating in Galatia. 
Contrast the language of Phil The antithesis expressed 

by &XXd k probably between the disposition, which he suspects 
some of Ms readers may feel, to regard the gospel of Paul and 
that of the |ttdai»rs as, after all, not so very different, and his 
own strong sense of the serious difference between them. The 
clausct w f dyyiXm ii oypamv m concerned, is 

Wng unfavourable to the fulfilment of the apodosito, 



avdOcjM e<TTO}, and the koX is intensive, marking the extreme 
nature of the supposition. It is, of course, only rhetorically a 
possibility. In respect to the following words, rrap' S, etc., the 
clause is causally conditional. See BMT 278, 281, 285 b. On 
the meaning of dyrye\o<}, see on 4“. 

HA Dial*®* Ath. Euthal. al. read ®6aYyeXfot3i:ac; BDFGIIL 
al. pier. Bas* read e6ay*ifeX(tiTQTai; Eus. Chr. Thdrt. Dam. have both 
and KP 442, 460, 1908 al. read External evideiue is 

indecisive as between -o-iQirat and -^YjTat. Tntrinsically it is a little more 
probable that Paul would write -'CirjTat, implying a cemtimious propagand- 
ism, rather than -arimi, which might suggest a single oc (‘itiiion of prciu fl- 
ing, contrary to the a{> le’s dodrine. ript iomil prolmliiiity abio 
favours as more easily than either of the other forms, arroimting 
for all the readings, each of the others arising from by the 

change of a single letter. It is also more proliable that sc ribes would 
give to the apostle’s anathema a hannher form by changing to 

-Tqxoii than that they would soften it by the reverse t liange. Ln. (mg.) 
Tdf. WH. read -arixau Ln. (txt.) Tr. Alf. Ell. I.tft. Welns, Sief. Sil. read 


H*'AD‘’KLP al pier, d f Vg. Syr. (psh. hard, pal.) Boh. read 
after ©OayYtX.; BlI have it before^ the verb; f * g ^»mtl it ; I Aiti, 

Cyr^T read after t^ayyiX. The reading may ta' ii.Hiile ;» 
weakly attested and protiably due to the inlluencr id Ci;i44 t« v, *, yet 
it Imrs a certain testimony to the presi*nce of a pronoun at this |Kilnt» 
The witnesses to before the verb and tiumt to after ll fiirninh 
strong testimony to its presence in one phu‘e or the other, with a prob-^ 
ability in favour of the latter {losition. 

occurs first so far m observerl In Arbtopli. 64 j, 
\ 6 *tooq xm (see f>iilnmfi, ITordi «?»/ Jrsm, pp. 

103 /.). The active occurs first apparently in the Lxjc, but k found 
also In secular writew after N. T. In the Lxx It k a IraiViktlou al 
**to bring tidings/* **ta bring gwai news/’ In N. T. ll k found 
in the active (Rev. io» 14* only), In the mhlrib Ircffiicnlty, atiil in the 
passive. The middle Is arcompiuibsl by an iwcufialive of timlcfti, 
with or without a dative of titdlrert objwt (Lk. 4** H*)* or by a liailvc 
(Rom. 1^*) or accusative (Acts of the firrsoa to wlitim ilie 
is delivered wlllioiit an arcumtive of rcmteiit, or l‘i uwl iilr«iiiiir|y 
(1 Cor. Bxr^t In Lk. D* and t The^. 4* the ai*eiimlivr iif initiriii 
wlors to the ** g«pf I ’* of salvation or to sonit ph%m uf ti , Wlitn 

usrf atooluttly or in the ^^aive the rdertnee k to llic pruiiiitiaikifi 

accusative of content (see Rom. 15*0 i Cor. 9 15*-* 2 Cor. 

iQi® II’ Gal. !«. 9. u.i 6 ,sa 418)^ always, except in i Thes. 3® Rom. 
io^“ and this verse and the next, with reference to the preaching of his 
gospel. By the addition of icap' ? 5 , etc., here and in v. », the word is given 
a more general reference than to Paul’s gospel in particular, yet doubt- 
less still refers to the preaching of the Christian gospel, not to the 
announcement of good tidings in general. It is equivalent to eiayr^Xiov 
xT3p6acj8tv, with e^ayy^Xtov in the same breadth of meaning which is 
implied in fopov sOayylXtov of v. «. On other ways of expressing sub- 
stantially the same idea as that of this v., see i Cor. 3“ 2 Cor. ixK 

It htis been much disputed whether TcagSc in luap’ 8 signifies ** contrary 
to,” or “besides.” But the room for dispute which usage permits is 
very narrow. The metaphorical uses of -xapdc in the New Testament 
are as follows: 

1. Beyond, passing a certain limit, (a) Beyond the measure or 
limit of: (i) in excess of (Rom. 12® 2 Cor. S’* Ileb. 11“ also Heb. 2’' ®); (“) 
in greater degree than (Luke Rom. i** 14® Heb. i®); (iii) in trans- 
gression of, contrary to (Acts i8*» Rom. i*« 4*« ii®® 16*’); (b) after com- 
paratives, than (Luke 3®** Heb. r<3» pa* 11* 12®®); (c) after ( 55 XXoc, than, 
except (i Cor. 3“ and freq. in Greek writers), 

2. Aside from, except, lacking, used with a numeral, 2 Cor. ii*®, and 
in Greek writers with other expressions suggesting number or quantity. 

3. Because of (x Con 

The use in the present passage evidently falls neither under 2 nor 3; 
nor umler 1 (a) (i) or (ii); nor, because of the absence of a comparative 
or under (b) or (c). The meaning “ beside, in iuldition to,” does 
not exist in N. T., nor have instances of it been jiointed out in the Lxx 
or Greek writers. The nearest approach to it is that which is illus- 
trattnl in s Cor. 3^; [jut this sense apparently occurs only after ^XXoc, 
which is not found in the present passage. It remains therefore to 
take wpd in this verse, and the following, in the sense common in classical 
writers and in N. T., “contrary to,” i, (a) (iii) above. It sliould be 
observe!, however, that the fundamental meaning of mrpde is “by the 
side of,” then “beyond,” and that it acquires the meaning “contrary 
to” from the conception of that which got^ beyond (and so transgr«s«) 
the limits of the object. This fundamental idea seems usually at least 
to Unger in the word, suggesting not so much direct contradiction or 
denial, or on the other aide merely addition, as exceeding the limits 
of a thing, a law or teaching— and so non-accortlance with it. 
C/, Rob., p. (n 6 . meaning suggested by the original sense of tlie 
prqawltion and by its usage is entirely appropriate to the proent 
The evidence of the letter as a whole Indicates that the 
ttiu^liliip of the which Paul evidently has in mind here, were 

neither, on tire one side, addltlom to his own teaching in the tame 



spirit as his, nor, on the other side, direct contradictions and denials of 
his, but additions which were actually subversive in effect. The trans- 
lation “other than” (RV., cf, Wei2jsacker) is not quite accurate, because 
it suggests any variation whatever from Paul’s message. “Contrary 
to” (RV. mg.) slightly exaggerates this idea of contrariety, suggesting 
direct contradiction. “Not in accordance with” or “at variance 
with” seems to come nearest to expressing the idea of the Creek. 

The words dvdOeiLa and dcvdOniia were originally simply variant spell- 
ings of the same word. The latter word meant in Homer “im orna- 
ment,” in Herodotus, el aL, “votive offering” set up in a temple. 
“ Votive offering ” is {X‘rhaps in fact tire older sense, fn this 
sense dcvd:Oe{jLa appears in (»reek writers from ITcaxTitus down. In 
the Lxx, however, it is used to translate onn, a thing devcrtal to 
God for destruction, a thing accursed. In the mss. of the Lxx and 
Apocr. dvdOntea and dvdi:6®g.a are for the most part consistently distin- 
guished, the former signifying “a votive offering,” the latter “a thing 
accursed, devoted to destruction” (Lev. 27**® Dent. i.V’ etc., or 
“a curse” (Deut. ao*’'). But variant rnullngs ap|rar in 

Deut. 7“ Jud. 3 Mac. 3‘^ In N. T. found only In 

Lk. 21® (even here |j<ADX read means “a votive offering”; 

<Ivdc0®U.a in Rom. q® i ('or. 12^ means “a thing (or rather a perstm) 
accursed”; in Acts 23'* “a curse,” a vow taken with jui <«ilh, a mean- 
ing found also in an Attic inscTiption of the firfU or Heioml tmtury 
A. 0 . (see Deiasmann in H 342), and lieiu'e ilouhtlesa a rnrmit 

use of the term in Common Gri^k, m it k in mcKiern C#rk. Cf, 
M. and M. s, v. The former of them,* two meaniiig^^ illflem from 
the common Lxx sense of dvMi^juas in that It deiiotrn ni,i« » inueli a 
thing devoted to God to \m dt*stroy«*d (me, e. |., Jrttfi, to* an out* 
under the curse of OckI, See i‘sp. Rtim. In this setw the word inmd 
be taken in the present pasHiige. How this coiidrmniitlon of <«»! 
would express itself is not conwywi in thb word. Taken In Ifirir 
literal sense the words dvdisiJia Um the %m* id thr ,w Rob, 
p. 930} are the op|3oslte of the bmedlrtion In v. *; they iirr a irlillmi 
that the p€r»>n referred to may tw deprivni of griire, utiii iii^irad 
be the object of hk dis;i|>provitl. Pri*ci'wly wlisit llir riiire^r’ 

Am rq>wentdi in Paulk mind m diflirult to determine, Iriaiiif it k 
impo^ble to know pra:My how largely the liy|M>rl«lr of 
tollng entered Into the wimis. For the wldeiire Ihal iii,w4 

not hew or In N. T. generally refer to exctinimniikatioii, 
inleiTprtters malnliined, note m tlife 

9 . &s irpoe^M^mfmv, ml ipn vdXtv Xdyrn, “ As wp wW Ware 
so now I say again.” The tt/m. in vpmp^mfmv may int*an 
“ before” cither in the sense “on a former occasion,” as, e. in 


I, 8-9 

2 Cor. 7® Heb. 4^, or in a predictive sense '^before the event 
spoken of/^ as in Mk. 1323 Rom. 922 2 Cor. 132. The two ideas 
are indeed not mutually exclusive. But the fact that v.®^, 
which is distinctly said to be a repetition of the utterance re- 
ferred to in TTpoeiprjKaixev^ is not a prediction shows that Tpo-^ 
refers to a previous utterance of these words. This previous ut- 
terance, however, is not that of v.s, but something said on a pre- 
vious occasion, as ^.g.,onavisittoGalatia,orina previous letter. 
Paul does, indeed, not infrequently use a plural in speaking of 
himself alone, and even change abruptly from plural to singular 
(see 1 Thes. 3^' ® 2 Cor. i^***^" 23 xo2 1121, and Dick, Der schrift- 
siellerische Plural ftei Patdtcs, pp. 143 and TrpoetpifjKapsp 
could in itself refer to something just said in the letter (see 
2 Cor. 7^). But the use of aprt here implying difference of 
time between the two utterances excludes the supposition that 
he is here referring to words just written down. Since we 
know of no previous letter to the Galatians, the previous utter- 
ance was probably made by Paul (or by Paul and his com- 
panions"— on this point the plural can not in view of 2 Cor. 
and other passages cited above be said to be decisive) when he 
was in Galatia. On which of the two occasions on whidi he 
had probably already visited the Galatians (4^*0 this warning 
was given, depends somewhat on the ciuestion of the chronology 
of these visits, itself turning in large part on the location of 
the churches. Sec Introd.^ p. xxi. The very fact that he felt 
it necesmry to utter such a warning as this suggests an’ al- 
ready existing danger. If tlie churches, being in northern 
Galatia, were founded on his second missionary journey, there 
might easily have l>een occasion for such a warning on his first 
visit to them. If, on the other hand, the churches were in 
^uthern Galatia, and hence founded on the first missionary 
journey, it is less probable that he had occasion at that time 
to utter so {Kiintcd a warning, and more likely that he refers 
to something said on the occasion of Ms second visit. 

The prfect tense of mwks this »ymg m not simply a 

ptst fttcl, but m one of which the result remains, doubtim in 
that remember (or may be assumed to rftmmber) the uttema 



of the saying. BMT 74, 85. The tense therefore conveys an appeal 
to their memory of the utterance. This reference to the existing result 
of the saying can not be expressed in English except by an interjectal 
clause, ^*as we told you and you remember,” and iiiasmiu li iis the use 
of the English perfect in such a connection suggests a recent action- 
in this case most naturally an utterance just made in the preceding 
sentence— the best translation is the simple past, which though it leaves 
unexpressed a part of the meaning of the Greek, has at least the advau” 
tage of not expressing anything not conveyed by the Gre{^k. Bi/ 7 ' 8i. 

The strict force of xaf before (Spxt is doubtless adverbial, '‘also,” hut 
English idiom in such a case prefers the simple “so.” Cf. Jn. 6^’^ 13“ 
I Cor. 1$*^ The fuller an<l more definitdy ('omparative exprerwion 
%ai occurs 1 Cor. (hd. 4^^ etc. freepumt in papyri, of 

strictly present time (M. and M. Voc. x. st), is cital by Nlgeli, 
schatZj p. 78, as a word of the unliterary Kotv^; yet. numerous 
classical cxx. in L, & S. 

€t w w/xa? €vayy€Xi^€rat, wap^ 8 TrapeXdftcre^ StpdBijm 
any one is preaching to you a gospel not in accordance with 
that which ye received, let him he accursed.'' Thh sentence dif*» 
fers from that of v.^in two respects whicli affect Hie thought: 
(i) the element of concession and improhahilit y disappears in tfie 
omission of ^ a77€Xo9 ovpamn*; (j) the fcirrrt of tfu* 
condition that suggests future ixmsihility is displaced hy that 
which expresses simple present supiKWiiion, and which is often 
used when the condition is knowm to he actually fulfilleth Hie 
result is to bring the suppositkm closer htrme to the iietual 
and since it was known both to Paul and his reatlers fliiit th«! 
condition d w . . . 7rap€\d0€r€ was at that very lime in 
process of fulfilment, to apply the mdBipm ^€rrm directly to 
those who were then preaclung in (Jalatia. 

10 * dpn jdp dpffpdkrom iruBm ^ Bedp; ** For am I now 
seeking the favour of men, or c^f (kxl ? dpr^^ now, 1, r in fhwt 
utterances. The aiwstle evidentiy refers to a charge that tin 
previous occasions or in other utterances ha had slnijirii filfi 
words so as to win the favour of men. A similar charge wit^ 
made by Ms opponents at Corinth, 2 Cor. loh mi 0 m iiir«in!i 
win the favour of/* “to eoneilkte/* m in 2 Mac, 4*^ *\It 
Acts The present tenne, by retimn dimply of the meaning 
of the word and the idea of action in p»gr€« siiggcittd by 

I, 9-10 31 

the tense, has the meaning, “ to seek the favour of.” 'BMT 
II ; GMT 25. 

The force of y&p is difficult to determine. If, indeed, as Win. Th. 
Preusch. et ah affirm, y&g has a conclusive or illative force (derived, as 
some maintain, from its etymological sense as compounded of yi and 
< 2 pa), this meaning would be most suitable. The apostle would in that 
case draw from his preceding sentence the inference, expressed in a 
rhetorical question, that he is not pleasing men (as has been charged 
against him), but God. Or if it had the asseverative force attributed 
to it by Hoogeveen el al. (see Misener, The Meaning of FAp, Baltimore, 
1904), this would also yield a suitable meaning: ‘^Surely I am not now 
pleasing men, am I ? ” But most of the N. T. passages cited by Th. 
et al. as examples of the illative sense are as well or better explained 
as in some sense causal, and though there remain a very few which it 
is difficult to account for except on the assumption of an asseverative or 
illadve force, whether primitive or derived (see Acts 16*^^ Phil, i*), yet 
in view of the preponderance of evidence and judgment that all the 
uses of are to be explained from its causal force (see Misener, 
op, cU,), and the fact that the only two N. T. cases that obstinately 
refuse to be reduced to this category are in condensed exclamatory 
phrases, we do not seem to be justified in assuming any other than a 
causal force here. In that case it must be either confirmatory — ^^and 
I mean what I say, for am I now?” etc. — or, explanatory and defen- 
sive, justifying the use of the strong and harsh language of vv.«*» — 
'^and this I am justified in saying, for aun I now?” etc* Of these two 
explanations the second is the more probable, since the preceding 
expression is already sufficiently strong and would naturally caU for 
justification rather than confirmation. To this as to any form of the 
view that makes y&o causal, it is indeed an objection that the clause 
introduced by ydp ought naturally to be either a positive assertion, or 
a question the answer to which is to the opponent m argument so 
evident and unquestionable that it has the value of a proved assertion. 
See, €* Jn* Acts 19** x Cor* ii**. But this latter is precisely 
what this question does not furnish. To those to whom Paul is ad- 
dressing himself It is by no means self-evident and unquestionable diat 
he is concerned to win the favour of God and not of men. But mth 
its backward reference to the strong language of the preceding s^tences 
wrests that this language itself h appealed to as evidence that the 
a|Wtl« is mi now seeking to please men but God, which fact, as y&p 
Aowi, he in turn employs to justify the language. It is as if one 
t^roved for undue severity should reply, “My language at lewt proves 
that I m 10 fiattmr,” the answer tadtiy implying that this fact 
Jiiitiied th© severity. Such a mode of expr^loa is not Imp^dbk to 



one writing under strong emotion, and this interpretation furnishes 
the most probable explanation of both dpn and yip. 

^ ^r)TS> avOptHyn-oK apicriceiv, “Or am I seeking to please 
men?” These words only repeat a little more distinctly the 
thought of the preceding clause, ap4a-/ceiv taking the 

place of Treidco and expressing the idea of attempt more defi- 

el h-i av6pinroi<t IfpeaKOv, '^purrov SovXo<: ovtc Av 7}p,r}v. “ If 
I were still pleasing men, I should not be a .servant of Christ.” 
A supposition contrary to fact (BA/T 24 S), implying that he is 
no longer pleasing men, and that he is a servant of Christ. The 
imperfect ■npea-Kov is doubtless like the above, conative, 

not resultative. This is the usual force of the progres.sive tenses 
in verbs of pleasing, persuading, and the like, which by their 
meaning suggest effort, and there is no occasion to regard the 
present instance as exceptional. That which the apostle says 
would prove him not to be a servant of Christ is, not a being 
plea.sing to men, but an endeavour to please men. The expres- 
sion is moreover comparative rather than absolute, .signifying 
not the intention under any circumstances or in any degree to 
please men, but to please men in preference to God, as to im- 
plied in the preceding AvAp^mm . . . ^ rAv and for hto 
own advantage and convenience as the whole eontext suggiats. 
There to no contradiction, therefore, between this assertion and 
that of I Cor. ro“: vdana nreurtp kpitrm, pAf fijT&v tA iftavroA 
<rAfi^pov AXXA rh rm voXK&v, tim (reaS&ffiv. The meaning 
ascribed to the sentence by some of the Greek expositors and 
by a few modems, according to which it expresses the awrae 
which the apostle would voluntarily have pursued if he had 
been seeking to win the approval of men, “I would not have 
entered the servic® of Christ but would have remained a Phari- 
see,” would almost of neemity have been expressed by e&c da 
iyepdfjtf^p “ I should not have bewme.” On XpwToS without the 
article, as a pw^r name, on ruA -xpunm in v.*, and detached 
note on TA® Tides mtd Predicates of Jesm, III, p. The 
whole sentffltice tdiht . . . ifftifp is doubttois, though its rela- 
tion to the preceding is not marked by any conjunction (the 

I, 10 


yap of TR. having no sufficient authority), a confirmation of 
the implied answer to the questions of the first part of the verse. 
The appeal, however, is not to the^fact that he was a servant of 
Christ — this his opponents to whose criticisms he is at this 
moment addressing himself, would not have conceded — but to 
his own consciousness of the incongruity of men-pleasing and 
the service of Christ. It is as if he should say: '^Surely I am 
not now a men-pleaser, for I myself recognise that that would 
make me no longer a servant of Christ.’' 

The connection of this verse with v.® is so obviously close, 
and vv. so clearly enter upon a new phase of the letter, 
that it is difficult to see how WH. could have made the 
paragraph begin at v.^®. RV. is obviously right in beginning 
it at V* 

It has been urged against taking flpscj^cov as conative that the closely 
preceding dpiijtttv is evidently not conative, since the idea of attempt 
is separately expressed in The objection, however, is of little 

force. The Greek verb in the present system means either “to 
be pleasing to^’ or (as nearly as it can be expressed in English) “to 
seek to please/' With a verb which by its tense suggests the idea of 
attempt, but only suggests it, the conative idea may be separately 
expressed, as in dtpicncscv, or may be left to be conveyed by the 
tense only, as in flpecrxov. 

T^>c{ “stilP* (i) primarily a temporal particle marking action as 
continuing, “then as before,*^ or “now as heretofore,” is also used (2) 
to denote quantitative or numerical addition (Iti ha SOo, “one or two 
more,” Mt. and (3) logical opposition (tC Itt diJuatpwXhs; 

y.pCvo|jwct: “why am I nevertheless judged as a sinner?” Rom. 3O* The 
Mfond and third uses, of course, spring from the first, and occasional 
instancw occur in which one or the other of these derived ideas is asso- 
data! with the temporal Idea and modifies it. See, Hcb. 1 P. In 
the present passage Iti might be (a) purely temporal, the compiwrfson 
licing with his pre-Christian life when he was not a servant of Christ; 
(b) purely tera|x>ml, the comparison being with a previous i>€riod of 
his Christian life when he wm seeking to please men and, consequently, 
wm not a servunt of Christ; (c) purely temporal, the comparison being 
with a previous of hh Christian life, when, as dkged by Ms 
nmis, he wm seeking to please men; or (d) temporal and adver»tive, 
fa, iiMmnliti “still, dapite all that I have pawed through/' Hie 
Inltrpfetailoii (b) h excluded by the practical impossibility that Paul 
owW chaiacteriie any |mit ol hk Christian life as one in whidi he 


was not a servant of Christ. The adversative rendering (d) is rendered 
improbable by the fact that his recent experiences were not such as 
to be specially calculated to eradicate the tendency to men-pleiising; 
rather, if anything, there was in them a temptation to seek to please 
men, a temptation to which his opponents alleged he had yielded. 
The interpretation (c) probably is correct to this extent, that the 
apostle has in mind the charges that have been made against him 
respecting his recent conduct as a Christian aimstle, and means to say 
that whatever may have been alleged respecting that past conduct, 
now at least it cannot be charged that he is still seeking to please men. 
Yet it is doubtful whether the reference is solely to an allegeti pleasing 
of men, and in so far as ixi implies a comparison with anything actual 
in the past, it must be with the days of liis Fhariseemm. For though 
Paul was perhaps less affectccl by the desim far th«‘ prai«* of men 
(Mt. 6»‘ *• 23* «f.), having more desire for righteoimnm arul divine 

approval, than most of his fellow Pharisees (Gal, Phil. yet he 
would doubtless not hesitate to characterise that pericKi of his life as 
one of men-pleasing as compared with his Christian life. The thiuight 
is therefore probably: *Tf I were still pleMing men, as wa:4 the cane in 
the days of my Phariseeism, and as my opiwnents allege hw been 
recently the case, I should not be a servant of Cfirist/’ 

AoGXo<;, properly slave, a bondservant,*' Is frcfpiently used by 
N. T, writers to express their relation and that of hrUevrrs in general 
to Christ and to Cod. The fundamental idea of the Wfird k Hubje«di«»n, 
subservience, with which :ure asscnriatetl more or lesn ('onslaiitly the 
ideas of proprietorship by a master and scTvIce to him, t1ir 
is subject to his master (xGpmc, Bseicktic), Iwlongn to him an hli prop" 
erty, and rendem him service. As applW to the dirktiiin aiwl fir- 
scribing hk relation to Christ or God the word rarrlt^ wit It It all three 
of these idew, with varying degrees of emptumw in dWrrrtit f-asn, ilm 
fundamental Idea of iiubit*ctbn, oluxllence, on the whole prnicimliiiil- 
ing. At the same time the conception of the slave iw one wh<i srrviM 
unintelligeiitly and obeys from fear, Is definitely rxrttidfd Inifti the 
idea of the Xpurtaa a« held by Paul and oilier M. T, writew; 
8ouXfl« in thb sena* k denlerb and uMmk aftirtiied in its pi#;* fCiiih 
4*-^ Eom. cf. also jn. 15** Kph. fP'*), The fifatewittril rif Cfrttter 
correctly represents the thought of N. T. in general: iniffiial 

moral relation of man to God k that of a wliitui? own 

will though perfectly free h iKUind to (hai/* II k evltieoily ^nrh a Itilt 
but free «rvia of Christ that Paul hm In mlml hen* i« the wm t 4 the 
term 3Cf The i^ort to plw« mtn will asid 

wcludtt mir»ervd! obedience to Cbifel* C/. Dfl««ai Mm liiM 
frm lA# 4 Mmi^ p, jli. 




apostle’s independence oe all human au- 

I. Proposition: Paul received the gospel not from men, 
but immediately from God 

Beginning with these verses, the apostle addresses him- 
self to the refutation of the charges and criticisms of the 
judaising teachers, and to the re-establishment of himself and 
his gospel in the confidence of the Galatians; and first of all, 
doubtless as against an assertion of his opponents that he had 
never received (from Jerusalem) a commission authorising him 
to set himself up as a teacher of the religion of Jesus, he alGSirms 
his entire independence of all human authority or commission, 
and his possession of his gospel by virtue of a divine revelation 
of Jesus Christ. 

I declare to you, brethren, that the gospel that was preached 
by me is not according to man; ^^for neither did I receive it from 
man, nor was I taught it, hid it came to me through revelation of 
Jesus Christ. 

11, Tvmpll^w yhp vpZv, aBekfpoC, ^'For I declare to you, breth- 
ren.’’ The verb yveopC^m suggests a somewhat formal or solemn 
assertion. Cf, 1 Cor. 12® 15^ 2 Cor. 8* Eph. i®, the similar ex- 
pression ov 6 ikm ay poelp in Rom. 1 Cor. 10^ 12^ 2 Cor. 

I Then. 4^®, and M. and M, Voc. on yva>pC^od and ytpdxr/cco. 
The assertion that follows is in effect the proposition to the prov- 
ing of which the whole argument of is directed. This 

relation of to what follows remains the same whether 

we read or ydp. Only in the latter case the apostle (as in 
Rom. has attached his leading proposition to a preceding 
statement as a Justification of it, not, however, of vA®, which 
is itself a mere appendix to vv. and almost parenthetical, 
but of the whole {maage, vv. as an expression of Ms surprise 
at their aj^lasy and his stem denunciation of those who are 



leading them astray- See a somewhat similar use of ydp at 
the beginning of a new division of the argument in Rom, cf, 
also Rom. The word ^‘brethren/’ doubtless 

here, as almost invariably in PauFs epistles, signifies fellow- 
Christians. See more fully in fine print below, and on v. 

r^p after yv(i)pfl;c/i) is the reading of 33 d f g Vg. Dam. 

Victorin. Hier. Aug.; U: KLP, the major portion of the 

cursives. Syr. (psh. hard, pal.) Boh. Or*®^- Chr. Kuthal. C!yr. Thdrt. 
al. The preponderance of evidence for y<kg is very slight. Both readings 
must be very ancient, y&p is the reading of the distinctively Western 
authorities, and Zi apparently of the Alexandrian text. But which in 
this case diverged from the original can not be de«*id«! by geneiilogical 
evidence. The group BDFG 8up{K>rting y^p, and that supiwrting 
viz., hap al, each support readings well attested hy internal 
evidence. Sttlntrod.^ p. Ixxx. The addition of 33 to the former group 
in this case somewhat strengthens it, and throws the balance of evidence 
slightly in favour of Y< 5 :p. Internal evidence gives no decided ground of 
preference for either against tlic other, and the question must appar • 
ently be left about as it is by WH., ydep In the text as a little more proh* 
ably right, on the margin as equally well attestivl. If M 
is the true reading, it is probably resumptive in force CHi. v. 7; 
W. LIIL 7 b; Rob. p. nSs marking a return to the main thought 
of the superhuman authority of the gosiasl after the imrtlal digrmlon 
of V. 

Among the Jews it was customary to recognise at brethren all the 
members of a given family or tribe (I*ev. 33** Mum, and Indeed 
all meml>ers of the nation (I.rev. ig*’ Dent. i*« 3 Mar. s* Arts 7* 
Rom. 9*). Papyri of the sec^ond century &. c, show that meml^rrs of 
the same religious community were called dlliXffil See M. and M. 
Foe. X. t. The habit cd the Christians to call one another lirethreii 
may have l>een the product in |«rt of lioth thmi older umgfs. In tlir 
Christian usage the basis of the relation i« purely religioits, kfitily aiirt 
national line, a« well m lines of merely personal frieiiclfhl|i» Ivlfif ilk- 
i^awled. Thus while the brethren mentloneil In vA were pr«.iiwatily 
Jeiw, thc»€ who are here aildressed m bretlirm were €f, 

id» Acts is*» According to the gcwiwk J«ws h«l taught that; they art 
hi» brethren who do CJmfs wlU. and they brtthrw to one amdlirr 
who wnitt In rtcognlting J»ii» himself m Maattr, Ml* Ml. 3j*, 
In Paul the of the tenn k upon Ibt afftilloiiair, 

mutmlly regardful attitude of Chrbtliini to ©ne a»thcf (1 Cmt. « 
8»»» 15W 2 I* a« Rom* I4»«« *** **), Iteugh th« of * mm ■ 

won rdbti«^,p to dilst mi CM to not wholly lacklfii (m ti»«. 

I, II 


SIS. If, S 9 )^ and the use of it constitutes an appeal to all those relations 
of affection and fellowship which Christians sustain to one another by 
virtue of their common faith, and membership in one body (i Cor. 

On later Christian usage, see Harnack, Mission and Expansion 
of Christianity 1 405 /. 

TO evayyiXMOV to evayyeXcadkp wr^ ipLOv Sri ovk ^<ttlv tcarh 
dvOpcoirov* ^‘that the gospel that was preached by me is not ac- 
cording to man/’ t^ evayyiktovy logically the subject of icrru/y 
is, by a species of attraction common both in classical writers 
and N* T, (Jelf 898. 2; W. LXVI 5 a) introduced as the ob- 
ject of yv(ap{^€0. On the meaning of ^vayyiktov, see detached 
note, p. 422 , and on ^vayy^icrdiv see on v.*. On the use of the 
verb with an accusative of content, or in the passive with a 
subject denoting the gospel or its content, see w. Lk. 8^ 
16^® I Cor. 15^ 2 Cor. ii^. The aorist tense, evayyekicrd^Vy is 
probably used in preference to the present because Paul has in 
mind at this moment the gospel not as that which he is wont 
to preach, or is now preaching, but as that which was preached 
by him to the Galatians. That the gospel preached by him is 
always the same is at once suggested, however, by the use of 
the present tense, ^otcp, A converse use of aorist and present 
occurs with similar effect in 2®, amO^pLrjv aurok rb evayyikiop 
3 MTjppcrcroo^ 

Korta ^{><dxov, a phrase used by Creek writers from AeschyL down 
(see Wetst. on Rom. 3O, but in N. T. by Paul only, is of very general 
significance, the noun being neither on the one hand generic (which 
would require Tbv <lvQp<aicQv) nor individually indefinite, ‘*a man,” but 
merely qualitative. The prepo^tion signifies ** according to,” ^‘agree- 
ably to,” “according to the will or thought of,” or “after the manner 
of” (see It usod ^ikrly in the phrtoes mxdt, 6f6v, Rom, 2 Cor. 7®* 
mnk a Cor. 11’, and %sxx^ Xptwbv TijcroOv, Rom. 15®), and the 

whole phrase means “human” or “humwly,” “from a human point 
of view,” “according to human will or thought”: Rom, 3® i Cor. 3* 9* 
I5»* Ciad, 30. Respecting its precise force here there are three po«ii- 
billtiet: (a) As in i Cor, 9* It may sigmfy “according to the thought 
of man,” i of lium» authority; (b) mader the mfluence of the idea 
oi a m«safe In it may mtm “of human origin”; (c) it may 

c«vey simply the general Idea “human” without tmm emet dis- 
There Is no dwM ve grourd of choke mo'ng thm, but 



the last seems more consistent both with the usage of the phrase and 
with the context; notice that v. •» covers both source and method of 
origin, and does not specifically mention authority. The suggestion of 
Bous. (SNT.) that it means “self-originated,” “eigene Phantasic,” is 
not sustained by usage, and is excluded by the next two clauses, oflSi 
. . . in which it is in rffect defined. 

12 . ovBk iy^ Traph, avBpdmov irapikafiov airrS, “for 
neither did I receive it from man.” This is the first step of the 
proof of the preceding general statement that his gospel is not 
a human message. Like the proposition itself it is negative, 
denying human source. ovS^ coupled with ydp may (r) serve 
to introduce a statement of what is at the .same time a fact 
additional to the one already stated and an evidence for it, a.s 
is the case especially in arguments from analogy (see Lk. ao»» 
Jn. 5“ Acts 4*^ Rom. 8’), or (2) qvB 4 may throw its force upon a 
single term of the sentence, suggesting a comparison of the 
case mentioned with some other case prcviou.sly mentioned or 
in mind. On this latter view the comparison would douhtlc.^ 
be with the Twelve, who, it is taken for granteil, received the 
gospel otherwise than from man. This comjiari.sou it.self, iiow- 
ever, may be of either one of two kinds: (a) It may l« com- 
parison simply and, so to speak, on equal terms, “ For neither 
did I any more than they receive it, etc.” (CJ. Jn. 7", as inter- 
preted in AV., “for neither did hi.s brethren believe on him.” 
See also a similar use of oi/8^ without ydp in Mk. n*”; or (b) it 
may be ascensive comparison: “For not even I, of whom, not 
being of the Twelve, it might have Ijeen supiHwwi that I must 
have received the gospel from men, reccivtsl it thu-s" (e/. 
Gal. 6“). Of thtse three views the first (maintained by Sief.) 
is m<®t in accord with N. T. usage of ouBi ydp (see esx. alKive), 
but is objecUonable because the statement here tnade can not 
easily be thought of as a awjrdinate addition to the pawling, 
and because the presence of emphatic by the mere fact of 
its insertion, almost requires that oW shall be Interpreted as 
thromng its force upon it. The second view, 3(a), in more 
probable than tlie third, s(b); die implication of the latter 
that his rweiving his gwpel otherwise than from man k in a 


I, II-I2 

sense an extreme case seems foreign to the state of mind of the 
apostle as it appears in this chapter. The objection that there 
is no ground for assuming a comparison with the Twelve is 
without force; the whole tenor of this chapter and the follow- 
ing goes to show that PauPs commission had been declared to 
be inferior to that of the Twelve, and that he has this in mind 
throughout his defence; when, therefore, by the use of he 
indicates that he is comparing himself with some one else as 
respects the source of his gospel, we scarcely need to be informed 
that the unexpressed term of the comparison is the Twelve. 

The verb bears in N. T. two meanings: (i)],“To take to 

or along with one^s self/^ “to accept” (2) “To receive something 
transmitted to one.” The latter is the uniform or all but uniform use 
in Paul. I Cor. ii®* 15 Gal, Phil 4® Col. 2« (?) 4^'' (?) i Thes. 2« 
4} 2 Thes. 3S and is the undoubted meaning here. 

xapdk dcvOp(^ou. The original force of %<xp& with the genitive is “ from 
beside,” denoting procession from a position beside or with some one. 
In N. T. precisely this sense is rare (Jn. 16="), but in the majority 
of instances tlxe meaning is one which is derived from this. Thus both 
in Greek writers and in N. T. it is used after verbs of learning, hearing, 
inquiring, issuing, receiving, yet often in a sense scarcely distinguish- 
able from that of dx6. With Mk. cf. Lk. and with Mt. i a*** c/. 
Lk, When used after a verb which implies transmission, espe- 
cially a compound of xapd, xapdc before the noun apparently acquires 
by association the sense “along from,” marking its object as source, 
but at the same time as transmitter from a more ultimate source. 
Such seems to be the force of the prcporition in i Thes. 2*“ 4^ 2 Thes. 3®; 
it is also entirely appropriate to the first instance of its occurrence in 
PIiiL 4*»; its use the second time may be due either to the fact that 
Paul avoide<i the suggestion of a different relation in the two emm 
which a change to would have conveyed, or even to a desire ddi- 
cately to hint a divine source back of the Philippians themselves, mak- 
ing them transmitters. This latter instance seems in any case 
to be strongly against the view of Winer (WM, p. 463/, n.) and Mey. 
on i Cor, II « that xapd means “directly from.” On tlie other hand, 
Ltft/s view that “ where the Idm of tmnsmwion is prominent xaspd 
will be iMwi in preference to cibc6,” whether the object be the immolate 
or the remote sourc’c, is not sustaimxl by the evidence as a whole. 
Not only k often used of ultimate source, with no suggation of 
tfftwmliiiofi, bill M b used, in i Cor. ii« at least, when the Idea of 
tiaiMaWon h wggat^ by the vorb, and In every iaatance where 



"rcap& is used before a transmitting source, the idea of transmission is 
suggested by the verb or context, and the object is the mediate source. 
To this rule Phil. 4»® is, as remarked above, probably no exception. 
The force of %(xg6t. accordingly in the present phrase xap(3: dvOptJjxou, joined 
with xap^Xa^ov, which distinctly suggests receiving by transmission, is 
probably along from,'^ and taken with the phrase denies that the 
gospel which Paul preached was received by him from men as the 
intermediate source. This, of course, carries with it, also, the denial 
of man as the ultimate source, since the supposition of an ultimate 
human source with a divine mediate source is excluded by its own 
absurdity. In effect, therefore, xapd in the present phrase covers the 
ground more specifically covered in v.* by dx6 and 

*Av0p<5xou is probably to be taken as in St* dv()p<&xou in v. * in the most 
general qualitative sense, not as having reference to any individual; 
it is hence to be translated ‘‘from man,’* rather than “from a man.” 
C/. on v.i, and see Jn. 

oSre iSiSdxOr)^, “ was I taught it.” To the denial of 
man as the source from which he received his gospel the apostle 
adds as a correlative statement a denial of instruciion as the 
method by which he obtained it. This wa.s, of course, precisely 
the method by which the great majority of the Christians and 
even of the Christian teachers of that day had rtH;eived the 
gospel. It had been communicated to them by other men. 
Cf. the case of Apollos, Acts of Timothy, a Tim. 3“, and 

the frequent use of the word “teach” in reference to the work 
of ajwstles and preachers in general: Acta 4'* 5“* ao** i Cor. 4” 
Col. i*», etc. The apostle characterises his as an exceptional 
ca-se. As a pupil of the Pharisees he had been taught sa»me> 
thing very different from the gospel, but he luui had no 
connwtion with those who at the beginning were tlie teachers 
of the gospel. See the reference to these facts in vv. 

OCS< before i 8 i 3 . kread bySAD*FGF 41, 104, jaC, 446, 441 Bdi. 
Bus. Chr. Euth&l. Cyr. Thdrt. Dam.; otki by 8I)*KL Oer, at. Slot* 
the ktter evWwce proves that oiJtt b iwt mmpiy «j Wfcwyii- 
erssy of B., ood the Western authorities are almost tinattimounly «a 

the side of eW. dw probability is that etIM is a Wtadem d^pjmioa 

from the origbai reading oCtt, producdl ciUwr by actWwital wsimlla 
tioa to the preceding o 584 or by comsetion of the imiwtal romblnatloii 
oMI . . . oSre. Cf. WM. pp. 617/. 

Ihe oO«i before can not be repunMI tys strkliy corretative to 

I, 12 


at the begmning of the verse, since o5S4 and oBte are not correlative 
conjunctions (WM. p. 617 ), the “neither . . . nor” of the English 
translation by its suggestion of this relation to that extent misrepre- 
senting the Greek. Nor would the clauses be correlative if oflSi be 
read instead of oSee here (see below), since o6B4 . . . express not 
correlation — the first looking forward to the second and the second 
back to the first — ^but successive negation, each oiBi looking backward 
and adding a negation to one already in mind. With the reading oCxa, 
however, the second clause is introduced as correlative to the first, 
though the first had been expressed with a backward look to the pre- 
ceding sentence, not with a forward look to the present clause. 

aXXh Bi aTToicaXvyjreco'i ’Irjaov Xpurrov. “ but it came to me 
through revelation of Jesus Christ.” A verb such as is sug- 
gested by irapiXa^ov and is of necessity to be sup- 

plied in thought with Bt airoKaXihlreoK, yet not eBtBdxdrjv itself, 
since there is a manifest contrast between instruction and reve- 
lation, the first being denied and the latter affirmed, as the 
method by which the apostle obtained his gospel. On the 
meaning of airoKoXv^L'i, see detached note on’A7roAra\v7rT«t>and 
'kroKdXiApiSj p. 433 . It is evident that the apostle is here using 
the term in its third sense, viz., a divine disclosure of a person 
or truth, involving also perception of that which is revealed by 
the person to whom the disclosure is made. He is speaking 
neither of an epiphany of Jesus as a world event, nor of a dis- 
closure of him which, being made to men at large, as, e. g., 
through his life and death, might be perceived by some and fall 
ineffectual upon others, but of a personal e.\perience, divine in 
its origin (r/. ou^ . . , vapd avBpmrov), personal to himself 
and effectual. 

It has l>ecn much disputed whether 'Irftrov Xpurrov is an 
objective or subjective genitive, whether Christ is the revealed 
or the revealer. According to the former interpretation, Paul 
in effect affirms that Jesus Christ had been revealed to him, 
and in such way that that revelation carried with it the sub- 
stance of the gospel. If Christ is the revealer, it is doubtless the 
go^l that is revealerl. It is in favour of the former view (i) 
that Paul is wont to speak of Gtod as the author of revelations; 
and of Christ as the one revealed, not as the revealer: sec for 



the former usage i Cor. 2*® 2 Cor. 12', and for the latter i Cor. 
i’' 2 Thes. i’ Gal i*®; (2) that this latter usage occurs in this 
very context (v.**) where Paul, apparently speaking of the 
same fact to which he here refers, uses the phrase &'rroKa\v^at 
Tov viov avTOv iv enoC, in which Jesus is unambiguously rep- 
resented as the one revealed. It may be urged in favour of the 
second interpretation (i) that the phrase thus understood fur- 
nishes the proper antithesis to 'irapa avdpmrov and 
afBrming Christ as the source and revelation a.s the methorl 
over against man as the source and instniction a.s the method ; 
(2) that the gospel, especially the gospel of Paul as distinguished 
from the Jewish-Christian conception of the gospel, requires as 
its source a revelation of larger and more definite content than 
is implied when the genitive is taken as objective. But these 
arguments are by no means decisive. Paul is not wont to pre- 
serve his antitheses perfect in form, and the first view as truly 
as the second preserves it substantially, since it is self-evident 
that if Christ was revealed to him (or in him) God was the 
revealer. As to whether a revelation of wliich Christ wa.s the 
content was adequate to be the source of his gosixd, there is 
much reason to believe that in his conception of Jesus obtainetl 
by the revelation of him there were virtually involved for Paul 
all the essential and distinctive features of his gospel. Thus it 
certainly included the re.surrection of Je.suH, and as an inference 
from it his divine sonship (Rom. i*); these in view of Paul's 
previous attitude towards the law might, proliably did, lead him 
to recognise the futility of rightetmsncss by law, this in turn 
preparing the way at least for the recognition of faith as the 
true principle of the religious life; this accepted may have led 
to the conviction that the Gentile could tw justified without 
circumcision. While it can nt>t perhaps Im* {jnwctl that pre- 

^fAf l«f 

ences to his experience find their most natural exf>Ianation in 

by the revelation of Christ in him furnished the premise from 


h 13 


he closely connects the two extremes of the experience attrib- 
uted to him, viz., the revelation of Christ and the mission to 
the Gentiles. See also Acts 26 ^®* where a similar connection 
occurs. It seems, therefore, more probable that the genitive 
^Irjarov XpKrTov is objective, and that the apostle refers to a 
divinely given revelation of Jesus Christ which carried with it 
the conviction that he was the Son of God. See further on vJ®. 

'AxoxaX64ie(i)<j, being without the article, may be either indefinite, 
revelation” or qualitative, ** revelation.” In the former case the ref- 
erence is to a single specific though unidentified experience. In the 
latter case the phrase simply describes the method by which the gospel 
was received without reference to singleness or multiplicity of ex- 
perience. The reference in the apostle^s mind may be to the Da- 
mascus experience only (cf. w. »’) or may include any revelations 
by which Christ was made known to him. In the absence of evidence 
of specific reference ^^by revelation” is preferable to *‘by a revelation” 
as a translation of the phrase. 

2 . Evidence substantiating the preceding assertion of Ms 
independence of human authority drawn 

from various periods of his life 

(a) Evidence drawn from his life before his conversion 


To substantiate the statement of w.*^*^* the apostle ap- 
peals to the facts of his life, some of them at least already 
known to his readers; he begins with his life before his con- 
version to faith in Jesus. The evidence in the nature of tihe 
case is directed towards the negative part of the proposition. 
That which sustained the positive assertion he could affirm, 
but could not appeal to as known to others. 

ye hme heard of my manner of life form&^ly in the religion 
of the JmSf that b^ond measure I persecuted the church of God 
wnd ravaged it ^^And I was advancing in the religion of the 
Jms beyond many who were of equal age with wm in my nation^ 
bdng more mmdingly mdous than thy of the tradMons of my 

13. ifi^p itpaarpajn^p wore ip Too- 

^*WoT ye have heard of my manner of life formerly in 



the religion of the Jews/’ With this sentence Paul introduces 
the evidence which his own career furnished that he had not 
received the gospel from man or by instruction. The force of 
7«/o in the present sentence extends in effect into, if not through, 
the second chapter. The argument is cumulative in character. 
Its first step is to the effect that he was not, previous to his 
conversion, under Christian influence at all, but was, on the 
contrary, a violent opposer of the Christian church. From 
whom the Galatians had heard {^fcovaare) the story of his pre- 
Christian life Paul does not say; most probably it was from 
himself. If so, this reflects in an interesting way his probable 
habit of making use of his own experience in presenting the 
gospel, Cf. Acts, chap. 22, and esp. chap. 26. On the tense 
of 7 }KQv<raT€^ see HMT 46, 52. 

'AvacTTrpotpt, meaning in classical writers ** return/' etc., first ap- 
pears in the second century n. a in the sense maimer of life/* 
''conduct" (Polyb. 4. SaO, which sense it also has in the vesy few 
instances in which it is found in the Apocr.: Tob. z Mac*, (it is 
not found in tlie Lxx, canonical books, and though it stand# in the 
Roman edition at 2 Mac. 5 » it is without the supiwrt of either of the 
uncials which contain the passage, va. AV,); this k also its regular 
meaning in N. T. (Eph. i Tim. 4*** Ileb. Jas. 3** t Pet. 4‘* 
3*. 1. 1« 2 Pet. 2’ 

On the portion of xotI see Butt. p. and r/. Phil 4*® * Cor. id» 

(cited by Sief. od kc.), Plato, Leu. ^11 t Tpofe«; 

af6T«pev, **the capture of Tmy the second time"; Soph. O. T. 1043, 
TO0 wpiSwou xdXae icotI, ** the long-ago ruler of this land.*' 

*IouSsel^ 4 «, “the Jews* religbn/* occurs in N. T. only In this arid 
flbe following verse; for ewe. outside H. T, see 2 Mac. jw 8* Mi 
4 Mac. 4*«, In the passages in Mac. it dmot«» the Jewkh reUgbii iti 
contrast with the Hellenism whk;h the Syrian king* wm ewlmvourliig 
to force upon the Jews; here, of course, the ptm^mt Judakin with its 
rejection of Jesus in coatrajt with the faith of the followw of J«wi m 
flbe M«Wi. "Hie v«y um of the term in thk way Is slgiilfkaat of 
^ waoeption of the relation betwewt his former «id hli 

pr^at Mth, indicating &at he held the latter, tad had pr«eiit«l It 
to the GtMkmf nol m a ty|je of JudAm, hut m m indtptadmt 
rell^on dklJact from imt of the Jem Tkit^jh the word ttAttoity 
wi« prol«hly »ot yet In iite, the fact was la 

3ti /eo# hrep^X^v iBimop to0 Mmi 

60VP ** that beyoad mewure I per»cuted the church uf 

h 13 


God and ravaged it.” This whole clause and the following one 
are epexegetic of rrjv ifxrjv avaarpo<f) 7 ]v^ not, however, defining 
in full the content of that phrase, but setting forth that element 
of it which the apostle has in mind as bearing on his argument. 
That he stood thus in intense hostility to the church is evidence 
that he was not of those who through the influence of asso- 
ciation with Christians, and as a result of instruction (cf, oiJre 
v.^®) were led to receive the gospel. 

The word tep^oXili and the specific phrase xa6' 6xeppoX-^v are classical, 
but are used in N. T. only by Paul. The phrase occurs in Rom. 7^* 
I Cor. 12” 2 Cor. always in the sense ^‘exceeding (ly),” ** superior.’' 

The imperfects, iZluixov and I'rc 6 p 0 ouv, representing the actions 
denoted by them as in progress, bring out clearly the continuance of 
the persecuting activity. The latter verb, meaning in itself not simply 
“to injure,” but “to destroy,” “to ruin,” has here, as commonly in 
the progress ve tenses, a conative force. See L. & S. 5. v. and BMT 23, 
and compare on x®( 0 <a and flpecrxov in v. Sw&wij, used from Homer 
down, meaning “to pursue,” frequently carries the associated idea of 
hostile purpose, and so comes in classical writers to mean “ to prose- 
cute” (& 8 t< 5 x(i>v is “the prosecutor,” b (peOYwv, “the defendant”), and in 
the Lxx 0 er. 17^*) and N. T. “to persecute” (Rom. 12“ i Cor. 

4 freq.). xopSto, used from Homer down as a military term, meaning 
“to destroy,” “to ravage” (cities), and from -^^schylus, of violence to 
persons, is not found in the Lxx (canonical books). orApocr., but 
occurs in 4 Mac. 4«» ii* of persons. In N. T. it is found in this epistle 
here and v.»» and in Acts 9^1, always of Paul. 

On in N. T. sec detached note, p. 4x7. Two facts arc 

notable about the expression employed here, -Jj toO 0«oO: 

(i) the us© of the singular to denote not a local body but the Christian 
community at large. C/. the different use of the word in vv. »* ** i Cor. 
i» 2 Cor. I*; and for the evidence Hiat the phrase has this oecumenical 
m«Anhxg here, see the detached note referred to above. (2) the chax- 
acterisation of this community as the church of God. The first of 
th«ie facts dtows that Paul had not only formal the conception of 
dbturch» as local aMomblles and communities of Omstians (w. **), 
but had alr^y united thme local communiti« in Ms thought into 
one entity— the church. The second fact shows that tMs body already 
in hl» mind as the chosen people of God, and indicates how 
fully, in hk thought, the Christian church had succ^ai to the posi- 
don once cKcuplal by Israel. Paul’s wnployment of this pluiae in 
tMs p«rtiadar place was probably due to Ms sense of the wrongful- 
wm of hk p««utIoa as dlwt^ against the church of Cf 1 
0 «f, t$K InddtaatMly it may be nodcoi that Masmudh m the church. 



which Paul persecuted was a Jewish church, not only in that it was 
composed of Jews, but probably mainly of those who still observed the 
Jewish law, his characterisation of it as the church of God shows how 
' far he was from denying the legitimacy of Jewish Christianity in itself. 
Cf. also 1 Thes. 2“, and sec ItUrod., pp. Ixii/. 

14. Kal TrpoeKOTTTOV iv ’lot/SaZcrjttp imhp ttoXXow <rvinj\c- 
Kimra^ iv yevei pov, “and I was advancing in the religion 
of the Jews beyond many who were of equal ago with me 
in my nation.” As in the preceding part of the sentence, 
so here the action is presented not as a mere fact but as con- 
tinuing. Cf. Lk. 2“. The nature of this advance in Judaism 
is not defined. Cf. below on xmdpx<i>v. Increasing knowledge 
of those things which constituted the learning of the Jewish 
schools, a more perfect realisation of the Jewish (in his case 
specifically the Pharisaic) ideal of conduct, higher standing 
and official position in the Pharisaic order, may all have Iwen 
included in the experience, and in his thought as hero expressed; 
but, as Phil. 3'’ • would .suggest, es|)ecially the acliu'vement of 
righteousness according to the standards and ideals of I’har- 
isaism. His progress, he adds, not only carried him beyonci 
his own former attainments, but by it he outstripped many of 
his contemporaric.s, making more rapid progress than they. 

On 4 v ■vii> t 4 v«i (lou, 4 - ^ Cot. 1 1” Phil. .y. Though varies in 
inclusiveness from family to race in the largest sense, yet the etymo- 
logical sense (c/. rtvoyat, tswdu, ete.) is far retained that the word 
almost invariably refers to what is <ietermin«l by origin, not by t hoiee. 
In Jos. Ant, 13. 207 {io‘) we find imieerl the phriew; xh ii 
yivoi. Yet this is not N. T. usage, ami in view of the use of the term 
indicating that to his (ienlile readers Paul is dei« rihirig his 
life from the general national point of view, without reference to distim ■ 
tion of sects, and In the alrsenee of any ciualiiyiiig (ihrastt giving to it a 
narrower sense than usual, it can not be understood to have ^per ifte 
reference to the sect of the PhatLsecs. 

irepuraoripm \mdpx(ov rm irarptie&v pov trapa^ 

a-em. “being more exceedingly zealous than they of the tra- 
ditions of my fathers.” vtpiaerordpm is In form and force a 
comparative; the unexpressed member of tite conjpariwsn is 
doubtless to be supplied from the iroXXo^ owt}>uKidh-m. The 

I, 14 


participle virdpxaov is probably causal, though not emphatically 
so, ^'because I was more exceedingly zealous than they/' See a 
similar use of vTrdpx^ov in similar position in Acts 19^® i Cor. 

2 Cor. 8^^. Ell, and Sief, take it as a participle of closer defi- 
nition, defining that in which the action of irpodfcoirrov takes 
place. But this interpretation mistakes either the meaning or 
the tense-force of irpoiKOTTrov^ taking it in a sense impossible 
to it, ‘‘I was in advance of/' The whole phrase accounts for 
his extraordinary advancement as compared with his fellows. 
Though mrdpxoov is grammatically subordinate to wpoefCOTrrov 
the fact expressed by it is, even more emphatically than that 
conveyed by the verb, an evidence of that which the apostle is 
here endeavouring to establish, viz., that he was not at the 
time referred to under such influences or in such frame of mind 
as to make reception of the gospel by him from human hands 
or by instruction possible. The limitation of by r&v 

irmpm&p TrapaSdcem makes it probable that it is not to be 
taken as a class name meaning a Zealot, a member of the 
Zealot party (see Th. s. v, and Diet Bib,), but rather as an 
adjective meaning '' zealous for," “zealously devoted to." 
Aside from the question whether the Zealots and Pharisees 
were so related to one another that one could be a member of 
both parties (Phil, 3® shows that Paul was a Pharisee), there 
is no clear or even probable N. T. instance of used as a 

class name, and at the same time limited by an objective geni- 
tive, and the passages cited by Ltft. do not at all prove that 
Paul belonged to this party. As an adjective the word does 
not define the exact relation to that which is expressed by the 
genitive, but is general enough to refer to zeal to acquire, to 
observe, to defend, according to the nature of the case. In the 
present instance it evidently includes the two latter ideas. 
Cf. Acts 21^® 22®; the sense is slightly different in Tit. 2^^ 
I Pet 3^®. 

it«lf signifieii an act of transmission or that which is trans- 
miW«i (In N. T. always in the latter sense and with reference to in- 
struction or information), without indicating the method of transmis- 
sion, or implying my lapse of time such as is usually associated ^Ih 



the English word tradition. Thus Paul uses it of his own instructions, 
both oral and written, i Cor. ii* 2 Thes. (though possibly referring 
to elements of his teaching received from others), and Josephus of 
his own written narrative, Con. Ap. x. 50 (9), 53 (10). Here, however, 
the addition of -icarpotfiiv pi.ou distinctly describes the xapc5:8offt<; as trans- 
mitted from previous generations, and the similarity of the phrase to xa- 
pdSoatc x&y xpecrpUT:4p(av (Mt. 15’ Mk. where it is contrasted with the 

laws of Moses), and to Td lx xapa86as(»>«; Tfiiv xatlp^w, Jos. Ani. 13. 297 
(io«),* where the things derived by tradition from the fathers and not 
written in the laws ot Moses are contrasted with those which are thus 
written, makes it clear that Paul refers to the well-known orally trans- 
mitted traditions which were observed by the Pharisees, I'here Is no 
reason, however, especially in view of (he fact that Paul is writing to 
Gentiles, to take xarpix^w pi.ou otherwise than simply in the national 
sense (c/. Iv Ttp rlv®t (xou above), describing the traditions m derived from 
his national ancestors, not from his (Pharisaic) fathers in contrast with 
those of other Jews, or of the Sadducees* Cf. the pamge cited 
above from Josephus, in which the traditions observetl by the Pharisees 
are described not as coming from the Pharisees, but from the fathers, 
and criticised not on the ground of their Pharisaic origin, but m being 
observed by the Pharisees as authoritative. Cf. also Mk. 7 »‘ *. 

(b) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from the 
circumstances of his conversion an<l his conduct immediately 

Passing from the evidence of his pre-Christian life, the apostle 
now draws evidence from the conversk)n-e3€{>erience and his 
conduct immediately thereafter* 

^^And whm i$ phased him who from my maiker\s womb had sH 
me apari^ and wha called me through his grmr^ rmeM kk Sou 
in me^ that I might preach him among the Gmtiles^ immedmkly ! 
communicated mt mth flesh and bloody did I go up h Jem- 
sedem to those that mre apostles before me^ but I wmt mmy 
into Ardi^ia ard again I returned to Dammcm, 

H Iff* •* 

Ir mt Pifium, nm Ii4 f*if« fi 

iMmm Mp fA f Ij* 

fmp wmrifimm 1*4 r^hi **a«i aew I to ftfcow »fc»l th« to tta 

isMtuto wfw Imm Ihi whkh Mt «t#it rfCtiriW i® tfci* bwi hjI 

wd o« ^ i»w«a Sid «f tl» SwWt^fs mAm it h mtmmf m w- 

m tMftp tl«* «t 1^1 ntt to tl# titop 

hy tfaditk© from ti» 


I, IS, i6 

16. "'Ore Bk evB6Kr)aev 0 aj>op[(rw; fxe iic Koi\Ca<; fjLijrpS^ fiov 
/cal Kokicra^ Zid> t ^9 p^a/)4T09 avrov (16) aTCo/cakity^av rov vlov 
avTOv ip ipLoi “And when it pleased him who from my mother’s 
womb had set me apart, and who called me through his grace, 
to reveal his Son in me.” The affirmation of this sentence that 
after his conversion, as before, the apostle kept himself apart 
from the Twelve is not antithetical to that of the preceding, 
but continues his argument; Si should, therefore, be translated 
“and,” rather than “but” (RV.). For the purposes of his 
argument the central element of the statement of vv.^®-^^ is 
in v.^®^: “immediately I communicated not with flesh and 
blood.” For this statement, however, pertaining to his con- 
duct immediately after his conversion to faith in Jesus, he pre- 
pares the way in by referring to certain antecedents 

of his conversion. All these he ascribes to God; for that 
0 ii^opCaa^ . . , /caX KoXiara^ refers to God, and arroKoXv^aL to 
a divine act, is evident from the nature of the acts referred 
to. See esp. on the Pauline usage of fcaXioOj v.®, and detached 
note on ^Airo/caXxhrrm and ’ATro/caXu-^i?, p. 433. Of the three 
antecedents here named the first and second, expressed by 
ii 4 >opCaa<i and KaXiaa^ are associated together grammatically, 
the participles being under one article and joined by tcaL But 
it is the second and third that are most closely associated in 
time, h^plaa<i being dated from his birth, while tlie events de- 
noted by fcaXicra^ and am’otcaXxn^ai^ as the usage of the word 
/caXit^ shows, are elements or immediate antecedents of the 

By the emphasis which in his references to these antecedents 
of his conversion he throws upon the divine activity and grace 
(note ip xdpm) and by dating the first of these back to the 
very beginning of his life he incidentally strengthens his argu- 
ment for his own independent divine commission, lie whom 
God himself from his birth set apart to be a preacher of the 
gosfjel to the Gentiles and whom by his grace he called into 
that service can not be dependent on mm for his commission 
or subject to thdir control 

The question whether the phrase &mmXv^m ip ip^oi 



refers to a subjective revelation in and for the apostle or to 
an objective manifestation of Christ in and through him to 
others (on which Ell., e. g., holds the former, and Ltft. the latter 
view) can not be answered simply by an appeal to the meaning 
or usage of the preposition ev. h> ifioC can of itself mean nothing 
else than “in me.” But it may equally well represent in the 
mind of the writer the thought “within me,” with no reference 
to any effect upon any one else (cf. Rom. i’’ Gal. 2’®), or “in 
my case” and thus (impliedly) “by means of me to others” (cf. 
v.“ I Cor. 4‘ I Tim. i‘“). Which of these two represents the 
apostle’s thought must be decided by other evidence than the 
mere force of the preposition, (a) The meaning of the verb 
cm-oKaXinTTOi. As pointed out in the detached note on thi.s 
word, p. 433, with rare exceptions, if any, i7roKaXi^6) denotes 
a disclosure of something by the removal of that which hitlierto 
concealed it, and, especially, a subjective revelation to an indi- 
vidual mind. Now it is evident that only the revelation of 
Christ to Paul, not the public manifestation or presentation of 
him to the world in and through Paul, could l)c thought of 
either in general as a disclosure of what was previously hkhlen 
(since Christ had already Ijeen preached in the world hut had 
been hidden in his true character from Paul), or sjKtcifically as 
a subjective revelation. The choice of the word aTromXvrrrw, 
therefore, is favourable to the former of the tw«) views named 
above, (b) Such being the case as resjwcts the meaning of 
&7ro/ca\v7rrei, it is evkient that the idea of a manifestation of 
Christ in and tlrrough Paul to otliers could hardly have been 
expressed simply by but would retjuire StA 

or some such addition as xth-fif. (c) The coimwdion 
with tm tvarf/eXi^n/JUu also favours the reference to an ex{H*ri- 
ence in itself affecting Paul only. This revelation is defined 
by the passage as die third stage of the ajmtle’s preparation 
for Ws public proclamation of Christ (not, as Ltft, mato it, an 
integml part of his entrance on that ministiy; euwyyeXi^mfmi 
aMv defines his ministry, to whidi the divine &7ramX^ai, 
equally wth the kj>aplom and the KaXkrcu^ were prejmratory). 
For tMs preaching an inward revelation to Paul of the Son of 

I, IS, i6 SI 

God, whom he was to preach, was a natural and necessary 
preparation; a manifestation of Christ in and through him to 
others is too nearly identical with the preaching itself to be 
spoken of as having that preaching for its purpose, (d) 
clearly speaks of a revelation of Christ to Paul by which he 
received his gospel. The similarity of the terms used here and 
the close connection of the thought — ^Paul is here proving what 
he there affirmed — make it probable that the terms mean the 
same and the fact referred to is the same here as there, (e) 
Even aside from any similarity of terminology it is evident 
that the whole subject of discourse in this paragraph is not how 
Paul made known his gospel, but how he received it; the refer- 
ence of the central term of this sentence to the presentation of 
Christ to others involves an impossible digression from the 
theme of the whole passage. 

The apostle’s use of the phrase ^^Son of God” and 
either alone sufficient to make it clear that by rbv viov avrov 
he means Jesus, while the time of the event of which he speaks 
and the phrase make it certain that it is the risen Jesus 

of whom he speaks. Though grammatically the direct object 
of kiroKaKv^af^y rov vldv avrov is undoubtedly to be taken as 
expressing the conception of Jesus which he obtained in the 
revelation; it is thus in effect equivalent to "Irjcrovv (or 
ehat) rhv vlov avrov. On the question, which is very impor- 
tant for the understanding of the genesis of Paul’s gospel, 
especially his Christology, what aspect of the divine sonship 
of Jesus he has chiefly in mind as having been revealed to him 
in the Damascus experience, and for the evidence that he refers 
especially to sonship as involving moral likeness to God and 
hence revelation of God, see detached note on The Titles and 
Fredimies of JesuSy V, p, 408, and cf. esp. 2 Cor. 4®. 

TR. with HABKLP al. pier, d Boh. Arm. Eth. Or. Dial Eus. 
Kpiph. p-Ath. Chr. C!yr. Kuthal. Severian Thdrt, Dam. Aug. al. 
Insert & after ti55650]cr«v. The text as above, without h Otdc, 
i» attestel by BFG 1905 f g Vg. Syr. (ph. hard) Eus. Epiph. Chr* 
thdrt. Ir*»^' Victorm. Ambrst* Hier. al Transcriptional probability 
fawiurs the tact without & m the original^ tiace thare k 



an obvious motive for the (correct) interpretative gloss, but none for its 
omission. In view of the indecisive character of the external evidence 
the internal evidence must be regarded as decisive for the omission. 

The verb s6Sox&i) (the earliest extant instances of which are found 
in the Lxx, where it stands most often as the translation of the Hebrew 
verb nj-j, *'to accept,’^ ''approve/' "delight in," "be pleased," and 
which is found in secular writers from Polybius down) has two general 
uses: (i) '‘to accept," "to be pleased with," "to take delight in," fol- 
lowed by an acc., dat., or with the acc., or Iv with the dat. : Gen. 33’® 
Ps. 5i^« I Chron. 29* Ps. 77^ Sir. 9” r Mac. 8* Mt. 3*’^ 12*® 2 Thes. 

(3) "to see fit," "to consent,” "to choose," followed by an infinitive, 
or with an infinitive understood. Ps. 40** (only Lxx instance) ; 1 Mac. 
6»» 14®** ®«* Lk. 12*® Rom. 15*® i Cor. i®* 2 Cor. $• Col. 1**1 Thes. 2® 3*. 
In this latter sense and construction the verb seems often to convey 
the subsidiary implication that the purpose referred to is kindly or 
gracious towards those affected by the action exprmed by the infinit ive; 
especially is this true when the verb is used of (ickI. See Ps. 40*® 2 Mat . 
14*^ Lk. i2« Col. 1*8; r/- the use of sfiBoxfa (which had clearly acf|uircd 
as one of its senses '‘good-will,” "favour") in Ps. 51** Sir. 32 (35)*® Ph. 
Sol. 8*8 Lk. 2*® Phil. 2**, and see S. and IL on Rom. jo*: " In this sense it 
came to be used almost technically of the gCKxl-wiU of G<k 1 to man." 
It is doubtless with such an implication of the graefious chanu ter of 
the divine act that Paul uses the verb in this plwe. The clause cjnpha- 
sises at the same time the tact that he owed hk "call" to God and tliat 
the call itself was an act of divine grace. 

signifies not "to remove from a place," but mark of! 
from something else," "to st^tmrate or set apart fitjm others" (Mt, 13®* 
2S** Lk» 6*8 Acts 19* a Cor, 6*’ <JaL a*» Lev. 13®* »• it /ref. In Lxx anti 
in classical writers); esp, to set apart for a particukr service, thfe latter 
occurring in Arlatot,, P0L6, 8*® (1322 h®*); Lxx (Kx. 13W Deut. 4**, 
etc.) ; and N. T. (Acts 13* Rom. i In view of thk meaning of 
i% xotXfa« ptyspk must be taken, ara*ording tt» what k la iiny i«f« 
its usual sense, as a phrase of time meaning "from birth." Sm Judg. 

Fs, 32 *® 71® Im. 49* (Job I** 38® only otherwise); Lk. i®« Ja. 9* 
Acts 3* 148 (Mt. 19*8 only otherwise). C/. also Jer. i*. 

On the Pauline usage of the word xaXlw, »e on v.« mid on the mean- 
Inf of ^ detached note, p, 423, k manifestly Initfiiment&l, 
bul not in the strictor md mom usual sense of the term. II ami k» lit 
object not ai that which* sta434lng, m to sp«k, between the 4 mr of tlic 
ttd It# ^ect* Is the Inatmmtnt through which the action it 
ac^ttplWidl (m, Rom. is*» Gal 3** but rather m that 

whto itajrfliif bAiad the action 'rewleri It pewibk; », A«:i» 1* 

Rom. I® I 4», €f. note on W initromtnlal under v.*, The 
may be reader^* "by virtue of hk piwi," 

"in the exercl^ of hk^ 

S 3 

I, i6 

Xva evayyeXi^co/uLat avrbv iv rok Mveaiv^ ^^that I might 
preach him among the Gentiles.” The verb evayy. itself char- 
acterises the message as glad tidings, or perhaps rather as the 
glad message, the gospel (cf. on v.®), while avr 6 v (acc. of con- 
tent; cf, for this construction i Cor. 15^ 2 Cor. Eph. 
2^^ and Delbriick, Vergleichende Syntax, § 179), referring to rov 
vlov avTov defines its substance, A similar thought of the 
content of the gospel as summed up in Christ himself is ex- 
pressed in Rom. 15^®' i Cor. x®® 2 Cor. Phil. The use 
of the present tense evayyeXl^cofiaCy following the aorists 
KaXiaa^^ and av'o/caXmjrac indicates that the apostle 
has distinctly in mind that these definite events had for their 
purpose a continued preaching of the gospel. C/. i Thes. 4“ 
Phil, 2^® Eph. 4®®, Accurately but somewhat awkwardly ren- 
dered into English the clause would read, that I might con- 
tinue to preach him, as glad tidings (or as the good news) 
among the Gentiles.” 

In a few instances, chiefly in the phrases TcoXXa 80 viq and %(hra tA I 0 vt] 
as they occur in O. T. quotations, the word 86 viq is used by Paul in the 
general sense meaning “nations.” But otherwise and almost uni- 
formly it means “Gentiles” as distinguished from Jews, This is most 
dearly the sense in this letter, except perhaps in 3*^; see 2*< •* « 

Undoubtedly then Paul means here to define the divinely in- 
tended sphere of his preaching as among the Gentiles. Whether he 
recognised this fact at the time of the revelation which had this preach- 
ing as its purpose, or whether the perception of this definition of his 
work came later, this passage does not decide. According to Acts 
it came in connection with his conversion. The preposition Iv is impor- 
tant, indicating that the scope of his mission as conceived by Mm was 
not simply the Gentiles (for this he must have written 1 

toi«; Pvioiv) but among the Gentiles,, and by implication included 
all who were la Gentile lands. Cf. on 2 ^* *. 

m wpmf^amBipfqp arap/cl mal atfmri, immedi- 
ately I conferred not with flesh and blood.” The negative 
limits wpmapeBipriP, not evdim, which in that case it must 
have preceded, as in Lk. 21®; and this being so, ei04m 
must 1^ taken with the whole sentence as far as *Apa0iap, not 
simply ou rince by its meaning eWim calls for 



an affirmation, not simply a statement of non-action. Zahn’s 
contention that the time of the departure to Arabia is not 
fixed except as within the three years of v. is therefore with- 
out ground. Place for the events of Acts be found 

not at this point but after Ltft. gives the sense correctly: 
^Torthwith instead of conferring with flesh and blood. . . I 
departed/’ etc. 

21ap>t( xal aVocTTi, primarily denoting the parts of a living physical 
body (Heb. is here used by metonymy, as alone more fre- 
quently is, for a being having such a body, i. e., for a cor|)oreally condi- 
tioned living being, in contrast with beings of a higher order, especially 
with God. Cy. Sir. i4»« 17®^ Eph, 6^* and esp. Mt. 16*’^. See detached 
note on HvEupia and Hdp?, p. 49a. -icpoeaviOlp.TQv (here and only in 
N. T.) signifies “to betake one's self to/’ “ to hold conference with/’ “to 
communicate” whether for recrciving or imparting. (See Chryslpp. ap, 
Suid* s. V. ved'CToc [Bernhardy, 959]: Svccp ydp Ttvd ftpt 8®aadpisvev . . . 
icpoaav(26la6at Avupoxp^TB: “For he says that a certain man having had 
a dream conferred with the interpreter of dreams”; Luc. Jup, Trag, i; 
Diod. Sic, 17. ii6s pK&vrsffi icpoeotvaOl^csvoc icspl wO etiptsfoo, “con- 
ferring with the soothsayer concerning the sign.” See eictendcjd note in 
Zahn ad be, pp. 64/. In a% where the verb is limited by an acc. and 
dat., impartadon is apparently what is m mind; here, pdimrily at least, 
receiving, as is indicated by the general subject of disetourse, vk., the 
source of his gospel; yet note the double aspect of the mi referrwl to 
in the passages quoted above, involving narrating the drown or the 
sign and receiving advice concerning it. 

17, ovtk hvfjkdm ek ^hpoeriiXvfm wph rav 9 ipmu 
ATTOflrTdXoue, *^nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those that 
were apostles before me/’ The refertmee is, of course, particu- 
larly to the Twelve, yet would include any, such as James, 

ceived the apostolic office. The prejwsition 7 rp 6 is evidently 
used in its temporal sense. The reference to Jerusalem indl- 

of the phrase rok wp^ i/Mv &vo<rniKov<t involves the recogni- 
tion of the a^xmtleship of the Twelve, and implies that Paul 


1, 17 

tially the same character. C/. detached note on 'AttJo-toXo?, 
p. 363 . It possibly suggests that he regarded himself as already 
at the time referred to, an apostle, but does not necessarily 
involve this. 

o 55 ^ dv^iTvOov: fc^AKLP al. pier. It. Vg. Syr. (harcl-txt.) Arm. Aeth. Boh. 
Chr. Euthal. Cyr. Thrdt. Dam. Victorin. Ambrst. Aug. Hier.; oOSfe 
BDFG 103, 181, 429, 462, Syr. (psh. harcl-mg.) Bas. Thphl. 
The attestation of die- seems to be Western, that of dv- Alexandrian and 
Syrian. Either reading might arise by assimilation, dvii>. 0 ov under the 
influence of v.^®, dxiiXOov under that of but the former more easily 
because of the Tepo06XupLa. Because it was common usage to speak 
of going up to Jerusalem (as in v.i«; cf. M. and M. Voc, s. v.) dic^X6ov 
would be more likely to be changed to dv^XOov than the reverse, but 
for the same reason intrinsic probability is on the side of dvfjXBov, and 
the latter is in this case perhaps of greater weight. The preponder- 
ance of evidence is but slightly in favour of dv^XOov. So Tdf. WH. 
Ltft. Sief. Sd. et al. Contra Zahn. 

iCkXh airrfkOQv ek ^Apafilav^ ^‘but I went away into Arabia.” 
The purpose of this visit to Arabia, though not specifically 
stated, is clearly implied in ov Trpoaavedifiriv (rapid ical aXpart 
above. By that phrase the apostle denies not only that he 
sought instruction from the Twelve in particular, but that he 
put himself in communication with men at all, excluding not 
only the receiving of instruction, but the imparting of it. The 
only natural, almost the only possible, implication is that he 
sought communion with God, a thought sufl&ciently indicated 
on the one side by the antithesis of flesh and blood” and on 
the other by the mention of the relatively desert land to which 
he went. The view of some of the early fathers (adopted 
substantially by Bous.) that he sought no instruction from 
men, but having received his message hastened to Arabia to 
preach the gospel to the barbarous and savage people” of this 
foreign land (for fuller statement of the early views see Ltft., 
{). c|o) is not sustained by the language. He must in that case 
have written mi irpoaaP€ 6 ipi,riv^ but some such expression as 
mic hlmicaXiav. Nor is it in accordance with psy- 

chological probability. The revelation of Jesus as the Son of 
must at once have undermined that structure of Phaximic 



thought which he had hitherto accepted, and, no doubt, fur- 
nished also the premises of an entirely new system of thought. 
But the replacement of the ruined structure with a new one 
built on the new premises and as complete as the materials 
and his power of thought enabled him to make it, however 
urgent the necessity for it, could not have been the work of 
an hour or a day. The process would have been simpler had 
the acceptance of Jesus as the Christ been, as it was to some 
of his fellow Jews, the mere addition to Judaism of the belief 
that Jesus was the long-expected Messiah; it would have been 
simpler if the acceptance of Jesus had been to him what it 
doubtless was to many of his Gentile converts, the acceptance 
of a new religion with an almost total dLsplacemcnt of former 
religious views and practices. To Paul the revelation of Jesus 
as Ae Son of God meant neither of these, but a revolutionary 
revision of his former beliefs, which Lssued in a conception of re- 
ligion which differed from the primitive Christian faith as com- 
monly held by Jewish Christians perhap.s even more than the 
latter differed from current Judaism. Only prolonged thought 
could enable him to see just how much of the oUl was to be 
abandoned, how much revised, how much retained unchanged. 
Many days would be needed to con-struct out of the material 
new and old even so much of a new system as would enable 
him to begin his work as a preacher of the new faith. A pcriotl 
of retirement in which he should in some measure accomplish 
thus necessary task is both more consistent with his language 
and in itself more probable than an impetuous plunging into 
evangelism. Particularly improbable is tlu* selwtion of Arabia 
(see below on the meaning of the word) a* a place of preaching. 
Aside from the question whether there were Jews in Arabia, 
and whether Paul at this early period recognised with sufficient 
clearness his mission to the Gentilea to lead him to seek at once 
a Gentile field of ^ort, it is clear alike from his letters and 
from flie narrative of Acts that Paul had a strong preference 
for work in the centres of population and of civilised life. A 
withdrawal to a r^km like that of Ambla, sparsely inhabited 
and comparatively untouched by either Jewish or Raman civ- 

h 17 


ilisation is almost certainly, unless Paul’s disposition in this 
respect underwent a radical change, not a missionary enterprise 
but a withdrawal from contact with men. 

The term 'Apa^(a (Heb. originally simply ^Mesert’’) is applied 
by Greek writers from Herodotus down to the whole or various por- 
tions of that vast perunsula that lies between the Red Sea on the 
southwest and the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates River on the 
northeast, and extends to the ocean on the southeast. See Hdt. 2“ 
^ 107-113 488 (Encyc. Bib,). Its northwestern boundary was some- 
what vague, but the term generally included the Sinaitic peninsula, 
and excluded Palestine and Phoenicia. Within this great territory, 
inhabited doubtless by many nomad tribes, the kingdom of the Naba- 
teans established itself some time previous to 312 b. c. (see Encyc, Bib, 
art Nabateans In Jos. Ant, 14, 15 Jf, (i*), which refers to the 
time of Hyrcanus II and Antipater, father of Herod, Aretas, known 
from other sources to be king of the Nabateans, is spoken of as king of 
the Arabians (cf, also 2 Mac. 5*); his country is said to border upon 
Judea and its capital to be Petra. 2 Cor. has been inteipreted as 
showing that at the time to which our present passage refers the Naba- 
tean dominion included Damascus. See Sch drer, Gesch, des j Ud, VolJtcs^^ 
voL I, pp. 726 jf. In that case Paul would seem to say that he went 
from a city of Arabia into Arabia, which would be like saying that one 
went from London into England. But it is known that Pompey gave 
Damascus to Syria, and the coins of Damascus show that down to 
34 A. D. (between 34 and 62 a. d. evidence is lacking) it was under Rome; 
while a passage which Josephus {Ant. 14. 117 (7®]) quotes from Strabo 
refers to an ethnarch of the Jews in Alexandria, and thus indicates that 
the title ethnarch might be applied to one who acted as governor of the 
{people of a given nationality residing in a foreign city. It is probable^ 
therefore, that at the time of which Paul is speaking, though there 
was an ethnarch of the Nabateans in the city, Damascus was not under 
Nabatean rule, hence not in Arabia. This both removes aU difficulty 
from this sentence, and makes it practically certain that by * ApapCa 
Paul mtmn the Nabatean kingdom. See Clemen, Faidu$f I S3; Lake, 
Emlm Epktks &f SL Paul, pp. 331 
Into what f>ortion of the kingdom Paul went the sentence does not, 
of course, indicate. That the Sinaitic peninsula was sometimes in- 
cluddl In Ambia is shown in 4**, which, if the clause is a genuine part 
of the epkde, shows also that Paul so included it. But this doa not 

• Zite, Wmi kifiM, Idi-ukr,, 1004. 34“43t» foUoi^nf Mm, Badbrnmn, Dsr mmlte 

Bri 4 Fmdm am dti Marimksfr p. 3S3, think that th« ©tha&rch had JuiWktioii mm 
(nmmif) M^mm to vWaiW M 0 tm«cw. But wMto tMt suppodtlM wdl 

with w 4 A$», It ^ 1 ^ with ♦ 



prove that it was to this peninsula that Paul went. If it is necessary 
to suppose that he went to a city, Petra in the south and Bostra in the 
north are among the possibilities. There is nothing to necessitate the 
supposition that he went far from Damascus, nor anything to exclude 
a far-distant journey except that if he had gone far to the south a return 
to Damascus would perhaps have been improbable. 

Koi TrdXip mr^arrpeylra ek Aafiacr/cop, “and again I returned 
to Damascus.” An indirect assertion that the experience de- 
scribed above (diroKaXinlrai top vIop avrov ip ifioi) occurred at 
Damascus (c/. Acts and parallels); from which, however, it 
neither follows that the d7ro/cdXv^}n<; here spoken of must l)e- 
cause of Acts 9^* ** be interpreted as an external appearance of 
Jesus, nor that the narrative in Acts is to be interpretc*d as 
referring to an experience wholly subjective. The identity of 
place, Damascus, and the evident fact that both passages n‘fer 
to the experience by which Paul was led to abandon his opposi- 
tion to Jesus and accept him as the Christ, reciuire us to refer 
both statements to the same general occasion; hut not (nor are 
we permitted), to govern the interpretation of one expression 
by the other. As shown above our preseiit pass^ige deals only 
with the subjective dement of the experience. For the apos- 
tle’s own interi^retation of the character of the event viewed 
objectively, cf. x Cor. 9^ 15^-*. 

(c) Evidence of his independent apostleship dmwn from a 
visit to Jerusalem three years after his conversion 

The apostle now takes up the circumstances of his first visit 
to Jerusalem after his Damascus experience, finding in it evi-* 
dence that he was conscious of a source of truth iiKle|>cnflent 
of men* 

^*Thm ajkr ihret years / wmi up ia Jerusdem io pisit Cephm, 
/ renmimd wiih Mm Jifkm days^ m aiher a/ ike 4pmik% 
did I sm excepi James ike broiher qf i/m iMi. m re- 

spmk i/m things which I mik k 3^11, kWd, bifme (M, I am 
mi lyiMg. 

18 • tMrk rpM Iti| &pi}X0ap eh iffrepPi^m 

“Then after three years I went up to Jt*rus;ileifi to 
visit Cephas,” The phjra^ “after three years” is argumeata- 


I, i8 

live in purpose, not merely chronological. The mention of the 
period subsequent to his conversion during which he volun- 
tarily abstained from contact with the apostles at Jerusalem 
tends to show his entire independence of them. The three 
years are therefore doubtless to be reckoned not from his 
return to Damascus, but from the crisis of his life which pre- 
ceded his departure from Damascus. The exact length of the 
interval can not be determined from this phrase, which is prob- 
ably a round number (cf. Acts so^b ^.nd with it Acts 19®' 2^). 

In reckoning the years of their kings the later Jews apparently 
counted the years from one New Yearns Day, the ist of Abib 
(or Nisan) to another, and the fraction of a year on either side 
as a year. See Wieseler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four 
Gospels, pp. 53 jf. But we do not know that Paul would have 
followed the same method in a statement such as this. It is 
not possible in any case to determine how large a part of the 
three years was spent in Arabia. 

KTj<pdv is the reading of H*AB 33, 424*, 1912, Syr. (psh. hcl-mg. pal.) 
Boh, Aeth. The Western and Syrian authorities generally read II^Tpov, 
which is evidently the substitution of the more familiar for the less 
familiar name of the apostle. 

The verb lcr'copl<a (cognate with Tatciip, 75 pc<;, o!8a) is found in Greek 
writers from Herodotus down, meaning “to inquire in Aristotle and 
later writers in the sense “to narrate,” “to report”; it has this sense 
also in t Esdr. 00. 40(41)^ the only passages in biblical Greek beside 
the presimt one in which the word occurs at all; it occurs in Plut. Thes. 
30^; Pomp, 40*; Polyh. 3. 48^^ with the meaning “to visit” (places), and 
in Jos. {Anl, H. 46 [a®] BelL 6. 8 1 [i «]) ; Clem. Rom. (8‘^<) meaning “to visit” 
(i>ersons). See Ililg. and KIL ad he. The sense in the present passage 
k evidently that which is found also in Josephus. By the use of this 
word Paul charat‘teria*s his journey as having had for its purpose 
personal acquaintance with Peter, rather than the receiving of k- 
itruction, Cf. v. **, and see below on 

ml Iwipoima irpm avrop f)ptJpa<; BexaTT^pre* And I remained 
with him fifteen clay^/' The uae of the phrase wph^ aMv^ 
with its |>ers<>nal pronoun in the singular, referring definitely 
to Peter, rather than 'Trpd? with a plural pronoun or an adverb 
of place, emphasises the purely personal character of the visit. 

6 o 


On the preposition with the accusative after a verb not 
expressing motion, cf. Th. $, v, 1 2 b, and for exx. in Paul see 
I Thes. 3^ Gal. 2® 4^®' etc. The mention of the brief duration 
of the stay is intended, especially in contrast with the three 
years of absence from Jerusalem, to show how impossible it 
was to regard him as a disciple of the Twelve, learning all that 
he knew of the gospel from them. C/. oUrre v. 

19 . h‘epov Sk rS>p &7rocrT(lX<0v ovk elZov^ el /xi} ^Idtcm^op rbv 
aB€K(f>hp Tov KvpCov, *^and no other of the apostles did I see 
except James the brotlier of the Lord.^' On the use of h'epop^ 
see detached note, p. 420. It is evidently used here in its 
closest approximation to denoting merely numerical 

non-identity, not qualitative distinction. €l prj means here, as 
always before a noun, except.’* The only question is whether 
el fXT] Ta/cn)/ 9 ov, etc., is an exception to the whole of the preced- 
ing statement hepop . . . om elBop^ or only a part of it, om 
elBop^ Either is in accordance with usage (see Th. III 
8cyS, and such cases as Lk. 4^^» Rom, etc.). In this 
passage, however, the view which would make the excej)tion 
apply to a part only of the preceding assertion is excluded, 
since Paul certainly can not mean to say that he saw no one in 
Jerusalem except Peter and James, or even, according at leant 
to Acts 9®^, no person of importance. The phrastt must proba- 
bly be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the pre« 
ceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle. 
The assumption tlmt the term dwdarroJm is applied to James 
in a broad arid loose sense only (so Sief., r. g.) is without gowl 
ground in usage and is es{)eciaUy unjustified in view of the fart 
that tlie term km^rrdkmp under which James is by the exceptive 
phrase included, refers primarily to the Twelve. Cf. ck tach«i 
note on ^AwdarroXm^ p. 3%. ' 

here cl«»lgnat«l the brother of the It ieubtle* the iMfte 
who i» ilmlkrly tpoleii of In Mk. anil simply m Jiimci In CkL *« 
I Cor, 15* AiM 1 5** 2i*»; 1/. nJbo Jn, 7* t Cor, Ik l» never men* 
tbnM m me of the TwrJve; It Is miher to be suffMimti tliai he wm 
brooght to belitvi in Jesus by the vklon rtcciwtel In 1 C’or, is». 
He mrly ti>ok a proalnefit plat^e tn the rhiiw^h at Jertisalfwi CGal ** 
Acts i5»ff }, tad WM known In ktw trsditicifi m the first bklop ^ 


I, 19-20 

that church (Eus. Eist. Reel, II iX The view of Jerome which iden- 
tifies James the brother of the Lord with James the son of Alphaeus 
(see defence of it by Meyrick in Smith, DB art. “ Js^mes/' and criti- 
cism by Mayor in B.DB art. “Brethren of the Lord”) rests on no 
good evidence. Nor is there any positive evidence for the theory 
that he was older than Jesus, being the son of Joseph and a wife pre- 
■ vious to Mary. See Ltft.'s defence of this (Epiphanian) view in Dis- 
sertation II, appended to his Galatians, and reprinted as Dissertation I, 
in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age; and Farrar^s argument for the 
(Helvidian) view that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph 
and Mary, in Early Days of Christianity, chap. XIX, and in Smith, DB 
art* “Brothers of the Lord”; also Mayor, op, cit,, and Cone, art. 
“James” in Encyc. Bib. Mt. and Lk.^i^ naturally imply that the 
early church knew of children of Mary younger than Jesus. It does 
not indeed follow that all the six children named in Mk. 6» were borne 
by her. But neither is there any direct evidence that there were chil- 
dren of Joseph by a former marriage. Jn. 19®®- might suggest it (cf. 
Ltft. u. s.) but its late date and the uncertainty whether the statement 
is in intent historical or symbolic diminish its value for historical pur- 
poses. On the other hand the implication of the infancy narrative of 
Mt. and Lk* that Joseph was not the father of Jesus and hence that 
his sons by a former marriage were not brothers of Jesus, can not be 
cited against the Epiphanian view; for not only does this presuppose a 
strictness in the use of the term brother which is unsustained by usage, 
but the evidence of this passage as to the time at which the title “brother 
of the Lord ” was given to James, and the evidence of the Pauline let- 
ters in general (cf, on 4.*) as to the time when the theory of the virgin 
birth of Jesus became current, make it nearly certain that the former 
much preceded the latter. 

20 * & vfup^ I80V ip<lyircov rod 0€ov Srt, ov 

^*Now as respects the things which I write to you, behold, be- 
fore God, I am not lying/' For similar affirmations of Paul 
that in the presence of God he is speaking truly, see t Thes. 
a Cor. 1“ Its use here shows clearly that the facts just 
stated are given not simply for their historical value, but as 
evidence of what he has before asserted, his independence of 
the Twelve. A doubtless refers to all that precedes, from 
(or*^) on. Even so one can not but wonder why Paul 
should use such very strong language unless he had been 
charged with misstating the facts about Ms visits to the other 



(d) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from the 
period of his stay in Syria and Cilicia 

The apostle now turns to a period, which 2^ compared with 
shows to have been eleven or even fourteen years, during 
which he was out of Judea and not in touch with the other 
apostles, yet was carrying on his work as a preacher of the 

^^Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia, ^hind / was 
unknown by face to the churches of Judea that are in Christ; ^hmly 
they heard {kept hearing), Our former persecutor is mm preach- 
ing the faith which formerly he ravaged; attd they glorified God in 

21. ’"ETre^ra ^\dov ek rh fcXifiara rrj^ 'Zvpim nal Ki^ 
“Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia.’’ 
That this was a period of preaching, not, like that in Arabia, 
of retirement, is implied in v.^^, emyyeX/C^rm. On the <}ueH- 
tion whether he had yet begun to work distinctively for the 
Gentiles in these regions, see below on v.K 

The repetition of the article before Kdtxfcsec is very uniwimL Ihe 
two regions being acljat*ent and both nouns limiting xXfiwitas, one 
expect a sii^k article, standing ht*fore the firet one. Set?, g,, At1,« i * 
gt gu i5»t.4t Jog. g, 35 (2#) 12. 154 (4»); BrJl a. 05 (0») a. 24*/ 
(i2»), which reflect the all but uniform usage of N. T, and JoM?phus, to 
which Ant, 13. 175 (4^) and its. 233 (4**) are not finally exceptions. Note 
especially Acts 15**, xortdk *AvTi6xs«av ml Hvptav ml KsXmf^v. In 
Acts 15^*, where Uwpfstv and KiXixfav occur in the «mr order* the suriit ki 
is insertoi before KiXixfav by bf) c‘.at’«® Thphyl*’ only. Thk airong 
preponderance of usage makiB the i^cond article In the prweiit p;wiage 
a very diflcult reading, but even mon? strongly fiolnts to the scitnifhcry 
character of the rewiing without it, sustidned by 141, 

That some mss. should have omitted It In cemformity wlili i.'oinmnn 
usage Is not strange; that all the rest should have Inserlal It. ciefmftlflg 
thereby both from usage and the original ten, k almost l«i|««lble. 

22 . U kymoit^pm rf mm imX^^im^ 

*loviaim ram h Xpurr^, I was iinkmiwti liy fare tti 

the churches of Judea that are in Christ” Ttie {mriphraHlk 
form of the imperfect tends to emphasis the cotitinitaacc tif 

1 , 20-22 


the state, “I remained unknown/^ The motive of these state- 
ments of the apostle respecting his departure into Syria and 
Cilicia and the non-acquaintance of the Judean churches with 
him is doubtless to show that his work during this period was 
not in that region in which it would have been if he had placed 
himself under the direction of the Twelve, but that, on the con- 
trary, he began at once an independent mission. This, rather 
than, e. g,, the intention to show that he was not under the 
influence or instruction of these churches, is what is required 
by the nature of the argument, which has to do not with his 
contact with Christians in general, but with his subjection to 
the influence of the leaders of primitive Christianity. On the 
expression Tal<^ ifCfcX 7 }a(aL<; , . , iv cf. i Thes. 2^* 

2 Thes. Phil iK On the force of the preposition as meaning 
fellowship with,’^ see Th. z?. I 6 b, and cf, 5®. The ex- 
pression characterises the churches referred to as Christian as 
distinguished from Jewish, but reflects also the apostle’s con- 
ception of the intimacy of the fellowship between these com- 
munities and the risen Jesus. 

In itself the phrase ‘^churches of Judea” of course includes that of 
Jerusalem. Nor is that church excluded by the fact of PauFs persecu- 
tion of it, since this would not necessarily involve his meeting face to 
face those whom he persecuted, and, moreover, some years elapsed 
between the events referred to in v. and those here recorded; nor by 
tlie visit of Paul to Jerusalem, as recorded in vv. since the state- 
ment that he was unknown can hardly be taken so literally as to mean 
that no member of the church had ever seen him. In favour of the more 
inclusive use of the term is also 1: Thes. 2^*, where a similar phrase is 
employed without the exclusion of Jerusalem. Nor can Acts 9"-®® be 
regardwl as a serious argument against the more inclusive sense of the 
term. For, though v.« manifestly implies such an acquaintance o£ 
Paul with the (Christiana of Jerusalem as to contradict his state- 
ment here if it includes Jerusdem, and though v.« itself might be 
accepttxi as not directly contradicted by vv. of the present pas- 
ta^, yet the conflict lietween the first-hand testimony of the latter 
and vv. of the Acts passage is such as to call in question the accu- 
racy in details 0 ! the whole section in Acts. Acts a6®® is even more at 
variance with FauFs statement here, unless it refers to a period subse- 
quent to the |)€rltKi covered by Gd, Nor can Jn. 3“ be cltdl m 
evMcmce that Toiilafe cm mem Judea exclusive of Jerusalem^ the 



language there being ij 'louBate not f) 'louBafa alone; nor Mt. 3*, 
'Icpoa6Xuii.a xal •Kdaoc i) louSafa (cf, Paris and all France); nor Jos. AnL 
10. 184 (90 : ipr]yiQ<; icatca f) 'louSato xal 'Iepoar6Xutxa xal 6 va 6 <; Sti^iemv, 
since as the temple is in Jerusalem, so may Jerusalem be in Judea. On 
the other hand it can not justly be urged, iis is done by Bous., that a 
statement pertaining to the churches of Judea exclusive of Jerusalem 
would be without force, since, as pointed out above, the reference is in 
any case probably not to these churches as a source of instruction, but 
as those among whom he would probably have been working if he had 
put himself under the guidance of the Twelve, While, therefore, in 
speaking of ^‘the churches of Judea” Paul may have had chiefly in 
mind those outside of Jerusalem, the word Judea can not apparently 
designate the territory outside Jerusalem as distinguished from the 
dty. Of the location of the churches of Judea outside of Jerusalem 
we have no exact knowledge. On the extent of the territory covered 
by the term, see detached note on 'looSate, pp. 435/. 

23 . Si hfcovovr&i ^aav Sri "O Scwfcmp Ttoti mp 

evayyeXi^erai ri)p rrlcmp mre iwdpBei, ‘‘only they heard 
(kept hearing), Our former persecutor is now preaching the faith 
which formerly he ravaged/' fjpipov doubtless limits the whole 
statement, indicating that it constitutes the only exception to 
the ignorance of him referred to in tlie preceding clause. The 
logical subject of the sentence is the members of the churches 
mentioned in v. note the gender of the participle 
Srt is recitative, the following words Imng shown by the pro- 
noun to l)e a direct quotation. The present fmrtidple 
StS/cmp d^ribes the persecution as a thing in progress, assign- 
ing it to the past, in contrast with the present wp. The aorist 
would have presented it simply as a (past) fact. Cf- GMT 140, 
BMT 137. refers, of course, not directly to th^ to 

whom he was unknown by face, but to Christians in general. 
On €pmrf€Xi^€Tm see v. *. whmp is not the txidy of Chrisim 
doctrine, in wMch sense the word is never u«dl by Paul, but 
the faidi in Christ which the preachew of the gm^l bade men 
Concerning its nature me more fully under a*. On 
f ef, v. What is there descri W as a ravaging 

of the church is here called a ravaging of the faith, which li the 
prindple of the church^ lie; the aim of Faufi ^r^cudoa wm 
the eitermiaalion of the church and Its faith in J«i» m the 
Christ The is here, m conative* 

24 . Kal iv ifiol rov Oeov^ '^and they glorified God 

in me/^ i, e., found in me occasion and reason for praising God. 
On this use of h of that which constitutes the ground or basis 
of an action (derived from the use of the preposition to denote 
the sphere within which the action takes place) see Th. 1 6 c, 
though the classification at this point is far from satisfactory; 
W- XLVIII a (3) c; Ell. ad loc,^ though here also the matter is 
stated with unnecessary obscurity; and such passages as Mt. 6^ 
Acts 7*® Rom. 2^^* ^ 5^ Gal. The satisfaction which the 

churches of Judea found in Paul’s missionary activity in this 
period is in sharp contrast with the opposition to him which 
later developed in Jerusalem. See Of the several ex- 

planations that might be given of the more friendly attitude of 
the early period, (a) that Paul had not yet begun to preach 
the gospel of freedom from the law, or (b) that though he 
was doing so the Christians of Judea were not aware of this 
aspect of his work, or (c) that the. strenuous opposition to the 
offering of the gospel to the Gentiles apart from the law had 
not yet developed in the churches of Judea, the first is prob- 
ably true in the sense £md to the extent that Paul had not yet 
had occasion to assume a polenuc attitude in the matter; but 
in any other sense seems excluded by his repeated implication 
that tlie gospel which he now preached he had preached from 
the beginning (see 1“ 2^ and comment). But in that case there 
is little room for the second. The third is, moreover, the one 
most consistent with the testimony of this letter; see especially 
with its distinct implication that the opponents of Paul’s 
liberalism were a recent and pernicious addition to the Jerusa- 
lem church. And this in turn suggests that the apostle’s reason 
for adding the statement iBd^a^op . . . ifxoi was inciden- 
tally to give strength to his contention for the legitimacy of 
Ms mission by intimating, what 2^ says more clearly, that the 
opposition to liim was a recent matter, and did not represent the 
oripnal attitude of the Judean Christians. On the other hand, 
it must not forgotten that his main contention throughout 
iMs chapter and the next is not that he had been approved by 
the Judean Christians, but that he had from the first aettti 



independently. The whole sentence fj^vov ... & ifxoi is a 
momentary digression from that point of view. 

(e) Evidence of his independent apostleship drawn from his 
conduct on a visit to Jerusalem fourteen years after the pre- 
ceding one ( 2 ^"’^°). 

Following, as before, a chronological order, the apostle now 
narrates the circumstances of a very important occasion on 
which he came in contact with those who were apostles before 
him. At the outset he calls attention to the length of his 
absence from Jerusalem, fourteen years, during which, so it is 
implied, he had had no contact with the Jerusalem apostles; 
then to the fact that when he went up it was not at their com- 
mand, but in obedience to divine revelation; then, indicating 
that the question at issue was then, as now in (ialatia, the 
circumcision of the Gentiles who had accepted his gospel, 
he tells how he laid his gospel before the Jerusalem Christians, 
and in a private session before the pillars of the church, James 
and Cephas and John, since he recognised that t Iicir disapproval 
of his preaching might render of no avail his future work and 
undo what he had already done. Though, out c^f c<m8ic!eration 
for the opponents of his gosjnd of frt?edom from law, whe^ had 
crept into the Jerusalem church for the purpose* of ral)l)ing the 
Christians of their freedom and bringing them into fKmdage to 
the law, the apostles urged him to circumcise lltus, a Gra‘k 
Christian who was with him, he refused to do m; and m far 
from his yielding to the authority or persuasion of these em- 
inent men, whom.* eminent past did not weigft with him, as it 
did not with God, they impartixl nothing new to him, but when 
they perceived that (icKi, who had rommissiornxl Fetrr I0 
present the g«pi*l to the Jews, had given In Paul also a com* 
mission to the Gentiles, these* h^ders of the church c<irdiiilly 

II, I 67 

Then after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem, with 
Barnabas, taking Titus also along, ^And I went up in accordance 
with [aj revelation. And I laid before them the gospel which I 
preach among the Gentiles, — but privately before the men of m- 
inence — lest perchance I should run or had run in vain, ^But 
not even Titus, who was with me and was a Greek, was compelled 
to be circumcised {^ow it was because of the false brethren surrep- 
titiously brought in, who sneaked in to spy out our freedom which 
we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage 
[that his circumcision was urged], Ho whom not for an hour did we 
yield by way of the subjection [demanded] ), that the truth of the gos- 
pel might continue with you, ^ And from those who were accounted 
to be something — what they once were matters not to me — God accepts 
not the person of man— for to me the men of eminence taught noth- 
ing nm-^'^but on the contrary when they saw that I had been 
entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised as Peter with the 
gospel to the circumcised — ^for he who wrought for Peter unto an 
apostieship to the circumcised wrought also for me unto an apos- 
tUship to the Gentiles — Hnd when, I say, they perceived the grace 
that had been given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were 
accounted pillars, gave to me and to Barnabas right hands of fel- 
Imvshtp, that we should go among the Gentiles and they among the 
circumcised, '^provided only that we should remember the poor, 
which vefy thing / have also taken pains to do, 

1, Bemreacrdpmv ir&v ttoKw hvi^rjv ek 

Xvim *'Thi‘n after fourteen years I again went up to Jerusalem/’ 
Hinre lot the purposes of his argument that he had not been 
dependent on the other a{>ostIes (cf, ^0 it is his contacts 
with them that it is pertinent to mention, the fact that he 
speaks of these as visits to Jerusalem {cf. indicates that 
tlirougkmt the perimi of which he is speaking Jerusalem was 
the headquarters of the apostles. And this being the case the 
denial, by implication, that he had been in Jerusalem is the 
strongest {Wsiblc way of denying communication with the 
Twelve* It follows also that, had there been other visits to 
Jmimlem in tliis period, he must have mentioned them, unless 



indeed they had been made under conditions which excluded 
communication with the Twelve, and this fact had been well 
known to his readers. Even in that case he would naturally 
have spoken of them and appealed to the well-known absence 
of the apostles or have spoken, not of going to Jerusalem, but of 
seeing those who were apostles before him. 

primarily a particle of chronological succession, clearly has 
this force here, as is suggested by Sid . . . tov. The l«tta . , . 
Iiceixa . . . IxEtta of and the present v. mark the suc,c‘mivc 
steps of a chronological series, and at the same time of the apostle’s 
argument, because he is arranging it on a chronological framework; 
they thus acquire as in some other cases (see i Thes. 4‘^ t Cor. 15**) a 
secondary logical force. That Bed may mean ** after the la|>se of’’ k 
clearly shown by Hdt. 3®^; Soph. Fh, 7SS; Xen. Cyr. 1. 4®^ and other 
passages cited by L. Hi S. s, v, A. 11 2, and by W. XLVII i. (b) 
(WM. p. 47s), and that thk use wOvH current in Jewish Greek apfiears 
from Deut. Mk. a* Acts 34®®. That thk rather than throughout,” 
the only alternative meaning in chronological expressions, k the mean * 
bg here k evident from the unsuitableness of ^Hfiroughout” to the 
verb dvIpTQV. On the <|uestion whether jHirksl k to be reckoned 
from the same stoting |K>int as the three years previously namni 
(i**) or from the end of that fjeriod, there k room for ilifference of 
opinion. Wies. Ell. Alf. hold the former view; Lift. Mey. Beet, 
Sief. lip. 2, Bous. the latter. For the exfKmition of the a|>mtkk 
thought at thk iwint the question k of little conmx|umcc. Ilk pur- 
pose k evidently to emphasise the limitcxl amount of hk communication 
with the Twelve as tending to show that he ilk! not receive hk gtwtjel 
from them, anti for thk purfiosc* it matters little whether the fjericKl 
during which he had no communication with the Twelve was fourteen 
yeaw or eleven- For the chronology of the life of Faul, however, the 
qu«tlan k of more significance. While It h im|K»aIble to tkimitliie 
with certainty which view h correct, the balance of |tmlublllty fwim 
to favour reckoning the fourteen years as subsei|iiriit to the three ymm, 
IDbe nature of hk ai^nment requires him to menikm how lo^ 
idter hk a>ftverakm he made thk vkll. but duriiii liow long a 
he mm 
whidh p 

II, I“2 69 

The substitution of Teca&pwv for Sexa'ceaac&pwv (advocated by Grot. 
Semi, et a/,, named by Sief. and Zahn ad locJ), resting as it does on no 
external evidence, calls for no refutation. The supposed difficulties 
of the chronology of the apostle's life based on SexaTeacr( 5 :p<»)v are insuffi- 
cient to justify this purely conjectural emendation of the text. 

For the doubt whether ociiXtv belonged to the original text expressed 
by Zahn and Bous. there seems slight justification. It is lacking in 
no ancient ms., though standing in DFG d g Goth. Aeth. after dv^piQv, 
and in but one ancient version, the Boh. The quotation of the sen- 
tence without it by Melon. Iren. Ambrst. Chrys. seems insufficient 
evidence that the original text lacked it. 

/x€tA Bapvd^ay 'Vith Barnabas/’ i. e., accompanied by Mm, 
as in Mt. 16^^ i Thes. 3^® 2 Thes. rather than accompan)dng 
him, as in Mt. 25^® 26^^ Acts 7^®; for the remainder of the narra- 
tive, especially the constant use of the first person singular, 
implies that Paul and not Barnabas was the cMef speaker and 
leader of the party. 

avvrrapaXa^cbv ml Tkov* taking Titus also along.” Titus 
is thus assigned to a distinctly subordinate position as one 
taken along,” and the members of the party evidently ranked 
in the order, Paul, Barnabas, Titus. The apostle says nothing 
at tMs point concerning the reason for taking Titus with Mm. 
But the specific mention of the fact and tlie part that Titus 
played in the subsequent events (vv,®-'^) suggest that Paul 
intended to make his a test-case for the whole question of the 
circumcision of the Gentile Christians. 

Couceming the tense of the participle <JuwapaXap6v, see BMT 149, 
and cf. Acts The act denoted by the participle, though coinciding 
in time with the action of the principal verb, is expressed by an aorist 
rather than a present participle, because it is conceived of as a simple 
fact, not as an action in progress, least of all as one mthin the rime of 
which the action of the principal verb falls. 

2. Si mrd iTro/cdXv^iv' *‘and I went up in ac- 

cordance with [a] revelation,” I e., in obedience to such [a] 
revelation. The word & 7 ro/cdXvi^i 9 evidently has the same 
mining here as in 1“ (see the discussion there and detached 
note on 'Awoxdkwrrm and p. 433), but refers in 



this case to a disclosure of the divine will respecting a specific 
matter, not, as there, to a revelation of the person Jesus in his 
true character. Concerning the specific method in which the 
divine will that he should go to Jerusalem was disclosed to 
him, and whether directly to him or through some other per- 
son, the aposde says nothing. Nor can it be determined 
whether the word is here used indefinitely, referring to a 
(specific) revelation, or with merely qualitative force, describ- 
ing revelation as the method by which he obtained hi.s convic- 
tion that he ought to go to Jerusalem. On the former {Kjint, 
however, cf. 2 Cor. 12'®- Acts i3‘ i6^- “ 21“ 27“»®-. 

For a similar use of the preposition xatii cf. Acts 23“ Rom. i6’* 2 Thes. 
3*. “In accordance with,” being the more u-sunl and exact meaning of 
■mx&, is to be preferred to the nearly equivalent sense, “because of.” 
In Rom. 16“ and Eph. 3*. though the phrase Is the same, the sense is 

ical aue$^iirip avrolt rb evayyiXiov 3 KtjfivacrM in toZ? 
^Bveacp, “And I laid before them the gospel which I preach 
among the Gentiles.” The pronoun optoIv, having no def- 
initely expressed antecedent, is to be taken as referring in 
general to those whom he visited in Jerusalem, i. e., the (Chris- 
tian community. Concerning the word emyj^Xtop, see tle- 
tached note, p. 422 ; the use of the term here is doubtlras the 
same as in i*. The questions at issue between I*aul and thtw«* 
of a different opinion in Jerusalem were not historical, nor prac- 
tical in the .sense that they [)erUiitted to the methrsis of gt>s{x*l 
work, but doctrinal, basing to do witli the signifieance of the 
work of Christ, the conditions of salvation, the ohligaticms <»f 
believers. The use of tlve prwi'nt tense, r« flects the 

apostle's thought tlmt he is still at tln^ time of writing preach- 
ing the same gospti which he ha<l been preaching tefore he 
made this visit to Jerusalem. Cf. tl»e similar implication, 
though with a reveisie use of tenses, in i“. The use of a |Kwt 
tense, would almost have suggested that what he 

then preached he was now no longer preadiing. “Among the 
GentU^,” the ap<®tie says, suggesting that he not <»ly preached 

II, a 


to the Gentiles but to the Jews also, so far as they were in 
Gentile lands. Note the same phrase in and ek rh Wvtj 
in 2®, all of which indicate that Paul conceived his apostleship 
to be not simply to the Gentile people but to the people of Gen- 
tile lands. 

’ AvaTfBiQiJLt, found from Homer down, is apparently used only in later 
writers in the sense ** to present ” (matter for consideration). See 2 
Mac. 3»; Acts 251^, only N. T. instance, and c/. M. & M. Voc. s, v. 

KUT Ihlav Bk T0Z9 Bokovclv^ ^^but privately before the men of 
eminence.^^ Those who are here designated as ol Boicovvre^ 
are evidently the same who in v. ® are called ol Bo/covvt€^ and 
ol Bo/covpre: elval rt, and in v. ^ ol BoKodvre; cttvXoi elvat^ 
and in v. ® are also identified as James and Cephas and John. 
See note in fine print below. By these phrases the three men 
named are described as the influential men, the leaders, of the 
Christian community in Jerusalem. There is nothing in the 
present passage or in the usage of the words to indicate that 
they are used with irony. 

On the question whether this phrase refers to the same inter- 
view spoken of in ave 64 fJi‘'if}v . . . so that T0Z9 BoKovacv 

is merely a more definite designation of auToZ 9 , or to a different 
one, so that there was both a public and a private meeting at 
which Paul set forth his gospel, probability is in favour of the 
latter; for although an epexegetic limitation may certainly be 
conjoined to what precedes by yet it is PauFs usual habit 
in such cases to repeat the word which the added phrase is to 
limit (cf, kvi^Tiv in this v.; Rom. 3^ 9®® i Cor. 2® Phil. 2* — 
in I Cor. 3^® it is otherwise). In this case, moreover, it is diffi- 
cult to suppose that Paul should have used the very general 
amoh if, indeed, he meant only three men, or to see why if he 
referred to but one interview he should not have written simply 
teal &v€ 0 ^fJLfiP T0Z9 Bofcov(np rb €va^^i\Mop^ etc. Among mod- 
em interpreters Wies, Ell Ltft. Mey. Weizs. Holst. Sief. 
Lip. Zahn, Bous. et aL, understand the language to imply two 
interviews; Zeller, Neander, Alf. Beet Vernon Bartlet (in 
E^posUoff Oct, i 8'99), Emmet, et aL, but one. 



On the use of xax' C5(av, which can not mean “especially^' (as Bous. 
d al.) but only “privately,” cf, Mt. 17^® Mk. 4®^ 9*® etc.; Ign. Smyrn, 
7*: xplicov o5v Icrcfv . . , pi'^Te xcxt' l^lav xepl a(iT&v XaXtIv xoivfj. 

The phrase ol SoxoOvre^, vv.»* is an example of a usage rare in 
ancient Greek literature. The participle alone, as here, is found in 
Eur. Hec. 295 and Troiads 613, both times in the sense “men of stand- 
ing and consequence, men of esteem.” There is no hint of any derog- 
atory flavour in the phrase. In Herodian 6. sometimes cited under 
this head, xobq Boxo6v'ca9 has a predicate in xal aiiJ.voTdTou«; xal . . . 
ocixppove0i:<ieTou<; following. The meaning is “ those esteemed both most 
dignified and most sober.” With this cf. ol doxoOvrt? 0x6X0?, v. ». The 
expression ol SoxoSyrsc «lva{ xt which Paul uses in v. «» (and from which, 
as Zahn holds, the shorter form is derived by ellipsis) is found in the 
same form and meaning in Plato, Gorg. 472 A, where it is synonymous 
with t63ox(p.ou<; a few lines above; cf, also Eutkyd, 303 C, where the 
phrase is the same, except that the «lva( x% is inverted. The same 
phrase, however, is used also in the sense “ those who think themselvo 
something”; so Plut. ApopMk lacon, 49, and probably Plato, Apd^ 
35 A. The meanings of the word Box«!v itself as used In these or similar 
phrases are as follows: i. “To be accounted, esteemed” (a) in the 
indifferent sense of the word. See cf, Plato, Apd, 35 A; Plut. 

Aristid. I’; Epictet. Enchir. 13: x<Sv xmtv tlvml t* 9, dbeierxst 

<r«aux^. 2 Mac. 9^® (?) Mk. i Cor, i3*» (?) (b) in the definitely hon- 
ourable sense, “to be highly esteemed,” as in vv.** *K a. “To account 
one's self,” as in Gal. 6* t Cor. 3»» B* 10” Jas. i** Prov. For an espe* 
dWly close parallel to Gal. 6» see Plato, 4* E. ’Urns In all of the 
four instances in the present passage the word has substaniklly the 
same meaning, differing only In that m vv.**» « the word ii colourless, 
the standing of those referred to being exp«»s^ In the prctlkmte, while 
ha vv. »» the predicate b omitted and the verb itself carria the klea of 
high standing. 

f»4 irm ek Ktphv rp^xot ft IBftafiop. “ lest jierchance I should 
run or had run in vain.” vm expresses apprehension 
(see more fully below). The whole implies that the 
ap<»tle saw in the existing situation a danger that his work on 
h«half <A the Gentiles, both past and future, might be renderetl 
ineffectual by the opposition of the Jerusalem church, or of 
certain mm in it, and the disapproval of the apostles, and that 
fearing thfc, he sought to avert it. The ground of his appre- 
hen^cm is, of course, not a doubt concerning the truth of the 
fpxpd wMch te preached— it would be an impossible inoon- 

n, 2 


gruity on his part to attribute to himself such a doubt in the 
very midst of his strenuous insistence upon the truth and divine 
source of that gospel — but rather, no doubt, the conviction 
that the disapproval of his work by the leading apostles in 
Jerusalem would seriously interfere with that work and to a 
serious degree render it ineffectual. The apostle’s conduct 
throughout his career, notably in the matter of the collection 
for the poor of Jerusalem, and his own last visit to Jerusalem 
(see I Cor. 2 Cor. chs. 8, 9, esp. Rom. 15“*®*, esp. v.®^, 
show clearly that it was to him a matter of the utmost impor- 
tance, not only to prevent the forcing of the Jewish law upon 
the Gentiles, but at the same time to maintain the unity of the 
Christian movement, avoiding any division into a Jewish and 
a Gentile branch. To this end he was willing to divert energy 
and time from his work of preaching to the Gentiles in order to 
raise money for the Jewish Christians, and to delay his journey 
to the west in order personally to carry this money to Jeru- 
salem. His unshaken confidence in the divine origin and the 
truth of his own gospel did not prevent his seeing that the 
rupture which would result from a refusal of the pillar apostles, 
the leaders of the Jewish part of the church, to recognise the 
legitimacy of his mission and gospel and so of Gentile Christian- 
ity on a non-legal basis, would be disastrous alike to the Jew- 
ish and the Gentile parties which would thus be created, 

El<; x8v6v found also inLxx (Lev. 26*° Job Mic. Isa. 29®, etc.); 
Jos. Ant, 19. 27 (i^), 96 (i“); BeU. i. 275 (14O; iu late Greek writers 
(Diod, Sic. 19.9“) and in the N.T. by Paul (i Thes. 2 Cor. 6» Phil, 
2*9 is with him always, as usually in the Lxx, a phrase of result meaning 
uselessly,” ^‘without effect.” Running, as a figure of speech for ef- 
fort directed to an end, is not uncommon with Paul (i Cor. 9*** 
GaL Phil 2**; see also Phil. 5*® 2 Tim. 4’)* 

The clause . . . ISpa^iov has been explained: (i) As an indirect 
quwtion, “ whether f)erhaps I was runmng or had run in vain.” tpixw 
fo in this case a present indicative, retained from the direct form. So 
IJsteri, assuming an ellipsis of **in order that I might learn from them,” 
Wies., who assume an ellipsis of order that they might perceive,” 
and Sief., who supplies put to test the question,” and emphasise 
the fact that since expects a n^ative answer the apostle impHa 
no doubt Inspecting the result of his work, but only the abstract 


possibility of its fmxtlessness, (2) As a final clause, ^'that T might not 
run or have run in vain"’ (so X^rit. Beet). (3) As an object clause 
after a verb of fearing implied, “fearing lest I should run or had run 
in vain.” is in that case most probably a pres, subj., referring 

to a continued (fruitless) effort in the future. A pres. ind. would be 
possible {QMT 369.1) referring to a then existing situation, but is a 
much less probable complement and antithesis to I 5 pa{xov than a pres, 
subj. referring to the future. Cf. i Thes. 3^ So Lift EIL (?), Lip. 
(though apparently confusing it with the preceding interpretation). To 
the first of these it is to be objected that it involves a doubtful use of 
{ki} xo)?. Goodwin {GMT 369 fn. i) distinguishing clearly, as Sief, fol- 
lowing KUhner (It 1037, 1042, but cf. Klllmer (Jerth, 11 391 fn., which 
corrects Ktlhner's error) fails to do, between the indirect question and 
the clause of fear, maintains (L. & S. sub. -kwc, however, conim) that 
lA-ii is never used in classical writers in an indirect question. Sief., in- 
deed, alleges that this indirect interrogative use is comnum in later 
Greek, but cites no evidence. xwc is certainly nc»t used in Paul, 
with whom it is always a final particle, occurring in a pure finid clause, 
or in a clause of fear, or in an object clause after verba of pre«:aution 
(x Cor. 8* 9^’ 2 Cor. 2^ ix» ( 5 al. 4*^ t Thes. 3^; it is not tml by 
other N. T, writers) anci there is no certain instant t* of jjeft »o usetl 
in N. T.; Lk. which is generally so taken, Is at bent a doubtful 
case. To the second interpretation it in a <lt‘( isive ohjeciltm that a 
p;iat tense of the imlicatlve is use<l in final claumni only after a hy- 
|X)thctkal statement contrary to fact mnl to eipr« an unattaincti piir- 
j)Ose. Neither of conditions Is fulfilW here. The verb 4v«lll|cx|v 
expfmm a fact, not what would have b«n under certiilfi circufu- 
stamces, imd the afKJStk certainly docs not mem to characterise the 
purf)«e that he might not run in vain m unattalned. line attempt 
of Fdt., approved by W. LVf 2 (b) g (Wh^. p. 633), to give the 
sentence a hy|K»thetiral character by ext>kilning it, “that I might 
not, ts might easily have hapiasned if I had not commuiilrated my 
teat'Mng in Jerumilem, have run in vain,” h mi only artificial, but 
after iill fails to nmke tlie princi|ml clause dviilp,iWp ctr,, an mtttml hy* 
poth»ls. See QMT 333, 33b. The thin! InterpretAlion Is roniliiriii 
both with general Ckeek usage and with PaiiPaj^^ wid h 

Ae o^y probable one. It Involves, of coumt, the laiidkatfen of a 
purine of the tpottte’s ^tbn, vk., to avert what lie feax«l| that hli 
future work ^ould ba Imltlesi, or bis work Im uwloae. Bui a«fh 
fapicatlon h common In ckiii« of fear* When the vtrb of ftit Is ei* 
pr^^, the y4 dasm e«pre«» by Impikafcioii pif|we of m «> 
tioii peviottiy nieilfeoed or about to b« mi»lioo«l (Acta 3|*» $ Cor* 
lati); ifh^ the ©Illy toiplled the p# cla.ii», dtaotlng the fibjicfc 
d aj^rehioibn, conimp by the |iitr|»« of th# 

priodiiif wb (3 Cor* 9* 1 3»)* The « of th« totoivo 

n, 3 

following a statement of fact suflices, however, 'to show that in this 
case the clause expresses primarily an object of apprehension. The 
objection of Sief, to this interpretation, that Paul certainly could not 
have implied that his fear of his past work being rendered fruitless was 
actually realised, rests upon a misunderstanding of the force of a past 
tense in such cases. This implies not that the fear has been realised 
— ^in this case one would not express fear at all, but regret — but that 
the event is past, and the outcome, which is the real object of fear, as yet 
unknown or undetermined. Cf. GMT 369; BMT 227, and see chap. 

where the object clause refers to a past fact, the outcome of which 
is, however, not only as yet unknown to him, but quite possibly yet 
to be determined by the course which the Galatians should pursue in 
response to the letter he was then writing. 

3 . ccXX ovSk T/to9 0 <Tvp ^^Wr)V &Vy r^var^icdcrOr) ireptr 
r/x 7 ]d 7 ]vcu' ^‘But not even Titus, who was with me, and was a 
Greek, was compelled to be circumcised.” In antithesis to the 
possibility of his work proving fruitless (by reason of the opposi- 
tion of the Jerusalem church and apostles) Paul here sets forth 
the fact that on this very occasion and in a test-case his view 
prevailed. For aXXd introducing the evidence disproving a pre- 
viously suggested h3rpotliesis, see Rom. 4® i Cor. 2®. The fact 
of the presence of Titus with the apostle had already been men- 
tioned in the preceding sentence. Its repetition here in 0 <rwr 
ifnol is evidently, therefore, for an argumentative purpose, and 
doubtless as emphasising the significance of the fact that he 
was not circumcised. It is upon this element of the sentence 
especially that ovhi ^^not even” throws its emphasis. The 
opponents of Paul, the false brethren” desired, of course, the 
circumcision of all Gentile Christians. But so far were they 
from carrying through their demand that not even Titus, who 
was there on the ground at the time, and to whom the demand 
would first of all apply, was dreumdsed. The non-circumdsion 
of Titus, therefore, was in reality a decision of the prindple. 
The phrase ^ <r%m ifwi is thus concessive in effect. See BMT 
428. The participial phrase, "'EXkifjv adds a fact, probably 
like <5 criW ifmly known to the readers, but necessary to be borne 
in mind in order to appreciate the significance of the fact about 
to be LjOke the preceding phrase it also is concessive 



(BAfr 437), ‘'though he was a Greek” (and hence undrcum* 
cised; not of course, “although a Greek and hence under pre- 
eminent obligation to be circumcised,'' which neither Paul nor 
his opponents would have claimed). Though the Greek con- 
struction is different in the two phrases, the thought is best 
expressed in English by joining them as in the translation given 
above. Segond also renders “qui 6tait avec moi et qui 6tait 
Grec.” The term is doubtless to be taken in its broad 

sense of ‘^Gentile," as in Rom. i^® 2^* et freq., a usage which 
occurs also in Jos. Ant, 20. 262 (ii®), and in the Christian 
Fathers (Th.). This is the first mention of circumcision in the 
epistle. The fact so well known to Paul and his readers as to 
require no explicit mention, but clearly brought out later in 
the letter, that the legalistic party insisted most strenuously 
upon circumcision, is here incidentally implied, iqpaymerdf) is 
undoubtedly to be taken as a resultative aorist (BMT 42), and 
ovU rjvayicdcBri denies not the attempt to compel but the suc- 
cess of the attempt. That the attempt was (unsuccessfully) 
made is clearly implied in the context. 

The argument of Skf. for hb interpretation, making eWi 
a denial that pressure was brought to bear on Paul, »» by the 
apostles, confuses the dbtmction between the meaning of the word 
and the force of its tense, h u^ contbtently throughout 

N. T. In the present and Imja^rfect with coimtive force (Acts 36^* 
Gal. 2** 6u), signifying **to ap|dy pressure/* “to (seek to) compel**; in 
the aorbt, on the other hand, consistently with a resultative sente, In 
the active “to annpel/’ In the passive, “to be forced** (Ml. 14^ Ml. 
6** Lk. 14®* Acts i Cor. la**)- What, therefore, the mtkl with 
denies is simply the nmult. Whether that r«ull did not ensue be- 
caw no piwure was applied, or becatise the pressure mm »urc«ifiilly 
jrt«lst«l, can be <letermin©d only by the connection. The lad, lww« 
ever, that the Imperfect with would have dtarly the 

thou^t that no effort mm made, and the dear ImpllrAtkia In the ton- 
t«t tEfct effort wiw mack axe praclkally deddve for the pretiefit rw. 
SW/i contention that the context wlutlw eiort m the part of tlir 

Afmtltt to ha»vt Titus ciirc:uinds€<l hi wnsupiMirtid by the context, *»il 

Involvtt % n^pprehtniion of Paufa conitntlon tlirouiltoiil the pis- 
i«p; thii If Mit that the ape^tto dM not dlMgree frith him, and always 

approved hit fKslllon, but that he mm InilefMiidtiit of Ihw; in thb 

partkukr mailer, that they ykMod to him. Sc© «ip. v» » will iti ckaf 

n, 3“4 77 

implication of a change of front on the part of the apostles. For other 
interpretations of o6x . . . xept'cp.iQG^vat, see below on the various con- 
structions ascribed to 5i(3: . . . t|;su5aS^X<})ou<;. 

4, Bict Sk Tou^ irapeKTciKToxs ^lf^€vSaB€\<f)ov^^ ^^now it was 
because of the false brethren surreptitiously brought in.’^ 
The question what this phrase limits, i. e., what it was that 
was done because of the false brethren, is one of the most 
diflScult of all those raised by the passage. The most probable 
view is that it is to be associated with the idea of pressure, ur- 
gency, implied in ovBk fjvafytcdadu] , The meaning may then be 
expressed thus: ‘‘And not even Titus . . . was compelled to be 
circumcised, and (what shows more fully the significance of the 
fact) it was urged because of the false brethren.’' If this is 
correct it follows that there were three parties to the situation 
under discussion in Jerusalem. There were, first, Paul and 
Barnabas, who stood for the policy of receiving Gentiles as 
Christians without circumcision; on the other hand, there were 
those whom Paul characterises as false brethren, and who 
contended that the Gentile Christians must be circumcised; and 
finally there were those who for the sake of the second party 
urged that Paul should waive his scruples and consent to the 
circumcision of Titus. This third party evidently consisted of 
the pillar apostles, with whom Paul held private conference (v.®) 
and who because of Paul’s representations finally themselves 
yielded and gave assent to Paul’s view (w.’-®). With the 
second party it does not appear that Paul came into direct 
contact; they are at least mentioned only as persons for whose 
sake, not by whom, certain things were done. It is thus dearly 
implied that they who in person urged the drcumcision of 
Titus (0/ BoKovvre:) did not themselves regard it as necessary 
except as a matter of expediency, as a concession to the feelings 
or convictions of those whom Paul designates as false brethren, 
but who were e\ddently regarded by the other apostles rather 
as persons whose prejudices or convictions, however mis- 
taken, it was desirable to consider. On the question whether 
the apostles carried their conciliatory policy to the extent of 
the (hrcumd^on of aU Gentile converts^ see fn* p. 



Ilapefootjt'coc, a word not found in extant classical writings, is never- 
theless given by the ancient lexicographers, Hesych. Phot, and Suid. 
C/. Frit. Opuscula^ pp. i8i (Th.); Sief. ad loc,^ p. loi, fn. In view 
of the frequent use of the passive of verbs in later Greek in a middle 
sense, and of the definition of this word by Hesych. Phot, and Suid, 
by the neutral term dXX6irpeo<;, it is doubtful whether the passive sense 
can be insisted upon, as if these false brethren had been brought in by 
others. The relative clause, otTtveg etc., distinctly makes the men 
themselves active in their entrance into the church, which though by 
no means excluding the thought that some within were Interested in 
bringing them in, throws the emphasis upon their own activity in the 
matter. Nor is the idea of surreptitiousneas, secrecy, at all clearly 
emphasised. That they are alien to the body into which they have 
come is what the term both etymologically and by usage suggests. 

used elsewhere in N. T. only 2 Cor. evidently means 
those who profess to be brethren, L c., to be true members of the 
Christian body, but are not so in fact. Cf, FauPs use of the term 
<piu8ax6atoXo<;, 2 Cor. 11 **. These words icaptiadxtou^ 
express, of course, Paul’s judgment concerning these men when he 
wrote. That they were so lookerl upon by the other afwtles at the 
time of the events here referred to does not nec<»arily follow. 

The community into which ^Uhe false brethren*^ had made 
their way is unnamed. T'hat they had made their inflttence 
felt in Antioch, if not also generally among the rhurclies hav- 
ing Gentile meml)ers, and that they came from Jerusalem and 
were in some sense representatives of that church, is impliacl in 
the very fact that 'Paul and Barnabas came up to Jerusalem 
about the matter. If, therefore, ^apiwrdxrom and wupeurfIXSw 
refer to a visit to a church, we should menttdiy supply with 
them **inio the church at Antioch,*" or **mto the chiirchts 
among the Gentik^s.** But if, as is more prot>abk% these words 
refer to incorporation into the membitrshlp of the Ixidy, then 
the Inference is either to the church at Jerusiileiii, which if 
favoured by the facts above cited as indicating that they were 
actually from Jerusalem, or the f^lirklian cofnmunlly in gtii« 
ertl, wMeh is favoured by the indefmiteneis of the langtagc 
here employed and the fact that the apostIf% incllgnttion Is 
mmt naturally expliiaed if he m thinking of tb»e mm not m 
additions to the Jeru»lem church in partl€ukr» with which he 
was not directly concerned, but m aa dlemcnt of discord in the 

n, 4 


Christian community. In either case it is clear that they ema- 
nated from Jerusalem and were exerting their influence as a 
foreign element at Antioch or in general in the churches having 
Gentile members. See further, par. 12, p. 117. 

Of the numerous constructions which have been adopted for the 
phrase Sid: . . . (J^eu 8 aS 4 X(pou<; the following may be named: 

I. Those which make it limit some folio wing’word. (a) e’lf^atxev. So, 
omitting otg oOS^ (in v.*^; cf. textual note below), Tert. et aL, and in 
modern times Zahn. This yields the sense, “but because of the false 
brethren ... I yielded for a brief space. This may be dismissed 
because based on a text insufficiently supported by textual evidence, 
and giving the impossible sense that Paul yielded by way of the sub- 
jection demanded by the false brethren that the truth of the gospel 
might continue with the Gentiles.* (b) So, retaining ole; but 
assuming that the insertion of oI(; involves an anacoluthon, Wies. 
p. no; Philippi; and substantially so Weizs. Ap. ZeiL p. 155. 
Cf. Butt. p. 385. Paul, it is supposed, having intended at first to 
make Std . . . tpsuSaB. limit ofix eT5aixev directly, was led by the length 
of the sentence to insert ol?, thus changing the thought from an asser- 
tion that on their account he did not yield into a denial that he yielded 
to them, and leaving . . . i[)eu8a8. without a regimen. The objec- 
tion of Sief. (ad loc., p. 98) to this interpretation that these two concep- 
tions ** yielded on account of^^ and “yielded to’^ are so different that 
the one could not be merged in the other is of little force; for certainly 
Paul might naturally think of a yielding to a demand made for the sake 
of the false brethren as in effect a yielding to them. Nor can the fact 
of the anacoluthon itself be urged against this view, since anacolutha 
axe common in Paul, and especially so in this very paragraph. The 
real objection to this interpretation lies in the difficulty of supposing 
^at Paul could say that he refused to circumcise Titus because it was 
requested for the sake of the false brethren, or as Wies. in effect makes 
it, by them. Is it to be supposed that, when the very question at issue 
was the legitimacy of the gospel which offered itsdf to the Gentiles 
without legal requirement, he would have consented to circumcise 
Titus, if only the request had not been made for the sake of the false 
brethren? Weizs., indeed, interprets . . . 4>fu8a8. as giving not 
the dedsive reason, but for the urging of which Titus would have 
been dreumdsed, but a contribatory reason, which made his course aH 

• like Tert. Wow Mm, fiaefe the yieldiag and the subjection to have been to the 
«p^tl« and In the fact of coming to Jeruaakm to submit this quatlon to the apostlei 
thwi (nm in the circuroeWoa of Titui, which he maintains Paul denies to have taken place) 
yrt that It w« not demwded the aiwto, but more probably by the Antioch 

dtock See Cm, pp. /. A stmaier distortion of the record it would be hard to imaglw. 

8 o 


the more necessary — meaning which has much to commend it, but 
which it seems would have necessitated the insertion of some such word 
as pL<icXtcn:a (cf, chap. 6^°)* 

2. Those which make . , . tj^suSaB. limit what precedes, introduc- 
ing an epexegetic addition to the preceding statement. So Sief., who, 
joining this verse closely to the words 'jjva-fxdaOiQ TceptTpiiQ0iivai and mak- 
ing oOx limit the whole phrase, finds in the sentence the meaning that 
no attempt was made for the sake of the false brethren to compel Titus 
to be circumcised. In other words, though the leading men might not 
unnaturally have urged the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the 
false brethren, no such compulsion was in fact applied. Aside from 
the improbable sense given to oiB& . . . (see on v.<), this in- 

volves an extremely difficult if not impossible sense of Bl, concerning 
which see on v, To have yielded this meaning Bicb . . . (J;®uBaB, must 
have stood in the least prominent position in the midst of the sentence, 
not subjoined and emphasised by B 4 , or if for the sake of making the 
denial of Tituses circumcision — the fact itself— unequivocal, it was 
necessary that the words Beat . . . ti^euBaB. should stand apart, then 
they must have become a phrase of concession or opposition, express- 
ing the thought, ‘'though urged by,^’ or “in spite of the false brethren,” 
or have been introduced by 068^, “and not even for the sake of the 
false brethren.” C/, on oOB^ under i**. Mey. also joins this phrase 
closely to what precedes, but to the whole expression oOBI . . . 
wfpiTp.t30iivai, and finds in it the reason why Titus was not circumcised, 
». e., because the false brethren urged it. If this relates to Paul, con- 
stituting his reason for refusing to consent to the circumcision of Titus, 
it is open to the same objection as 1 (b) above, vus., it implies that but 
for the advocacy of it by the false brethren Paul would have had no 
objection to the circumcision of Titus. If, on the other hand, the 
phrase is understood to refer to the motives of the eminent Jeruwlem 
brethren, giving their reason for not asking for or consenting to the 
drcumcision, then we have the representation that the brethren 
urged the circumcision of Titus, and that the Jerusalem aposto opp0i«i 
it not on principle, but because it was being urged by the false breth- 
ren; a view which attributes to them a degree of opiwsltlon to the 
legalistic party in the Jewish portion of the church, and of champion- 
ship of the freedom of the Gentile, which dom not comport with the 
otherwise known history of the apostolic age, and which would, it 
would sem, have made this council itself unnecowtry. Had the facto, 
moreover, bwn what this interpretation makes them, Paul could hardly 
have Med to bring out with grmter dfetinctne* what would have 
hem so mudi to the advantage of his «»e, m he has done, #. In 

ITie joining of^the phrase with dvtOlnijy, or advocated by some 
of the older modem aepwtors (see in Sief.), scarcely cahs for d^i»- 

n, 4 


sion. These interpretations yield a not unreasonable sense, and avoid 
many of the difficulties encountered by the other constructions, but it 
is hardly conceivable that the reader would be expected to supply men- 
tally a word left so far behind. 

3. Those which make ScA . . , limit something supplied 

from the preceding, (a) oOx T^vayxdtaOirj TcepETtA-rjOnvac (Ell.) or oflx 
xepie'ctJL'^OTQ (Frit, cited by Ltft.). This is not materially different from 
making it limit o 684 . . . -rcept'cpt.iQSiivat already expressed, as is done 
by Mey., and is open to the same objections, (b) xeptsTpififiTQ, Rhck. 
ei air, advocated by Hort. (WH. II app. p. 121). According to this 
interpretation oO throws its whole force on ^vaYxdtafiTj, only the compul- 
sion, not the circumcision, being denied; is adversative, and intro- 
duces the statement of the reason why Titus, though not compelled, 
was nevertheless circumcised, viz., because of the false brethren. This 
is perhaps the most improbable of all the proposed interpretations. If 
the drcumcision of Titus was carried through without Paul's consent, 
then how could he have said that it was not compelled? If with his 
consent and, as he says, because of the false brethren, how could he say 
that he had not yielded to them for so much as an hour ? What was 
such consent but precisely the surrender which they de- 

manded (cf, on CixoTayi], v. ») ? And with what honesty could he have 
maintained that he had pursued this course at Jerusalem, *‘that the 
truth of the gospel might continue with you," when in fact he had on 
that occasion surrendered the very thing which was to him the key 
to the whole situation so far as concerned the relation of the Gentile to 
the law and to Christ? Cf. 5’^’*. In fact, any view which assumes that 
Titus was circumcised involves the conclusion that Paul surrendered 
his case under compulsion or through wavering, and that in his present 
argument he made a disingenuous and unsuccessful attempt to prove 
that he did not surrender it. (c) The thought of (unsuccessful) pres- 
sure implied in 0O8& . . . fivaYxdafiTj. This view (set forth in the larger 
print above), and weU advocated by Ltft. pp. 105, 106, yields a dear and 
consistent account of what took place, showing the Jerusalem apostles 
standing between the extremists on both sides, advising Paul to con- 
sent to the circumcision of Titus for the sake of peace, while Paul, see- 
ing in such a yielding a surrender of vital principle to the false repre- 
sentatives of Christianity, persistently refused J^it accounts at the same 
time for the insertion of the phrase, and for the characterisation of the 
men referred to as false brethren, etc., showing at the same time the 
extent to which the Jerusalem apostles could, from PauPs point of 
view, led astray, so as even to advocate a course dictated by regard 
for those who were in reality only false brethren, and suggesting a con- 
tributory reason for his redstance, that the demand for the circum- 
dsion of Htui originated with spies from without, men who had no 
proper place in the church a* aH. This view alone brings this portoi 



of the paragraph into line with the apostle’s general argument by which 
he aims to show his entire independence, even of the other apostles. 

If it be judged too harsh and difficult to supply from the preceding 
language the thought, “this was urged,” the most reasonable alternative 
view is that of Wies. et al. above). From a purely linguistic point 
of view this interpretation is perhaps the easiest of all that have been 
proposed, and if it could be supposed, with Weizs., that Paul would re- 
fer in this unqualified way to a reason which was, after all, only con- 
tributory, it would be the most probable interpretation of the passage. 

oinvei TTapeurijiXffov Karao'KO'n^cTat rrjv iXevOepiav 
“who sneaked in to spy out our freedom.” The liberty of which 
the apostle here speaks is, of course, the freedom of the Chris- 
tian from bondage to the law, which would have been sur- 
rendered in principle if the Gentile Christians had been com- 
pelled to be circumcised. Cf. 4"’ *■ and esp. s*"’- That 
he calls it “our freedom” (cf. vfia<{ at the end of v.®) shows that 
although the obligation of the Gentile to be circumcised was 
the particular question at issue, this was in the apostle’s mind 
only a part of a larger question, which concerned both Jewish 
and Gentile Christians, or else that Paul is for the moment 
associating himself with the Gentile Christians as those whose 
case he represents. The Antioch incident (vv.“-^') shows how 
closely the question of tlie freedom of the Jews wsis connected 
with that of the liberty of the Gentile Christians, both in fact 
and in the apostle’s mind. Yet there is nothing in his nar- 
rative to indicate that in the discus.sion at Jerusalem the free- 
dom of the Gentile was explicitly considered in relation to any- 
thing except circumcision. Still 1cs.h is it to lx; assumed that 
the question of the obligation of the Jewish Christian.^ in re- 
spect to foods or defilement by association with Gentile Chris- 
tians was at this time brought up. Rallier does the expression 
“that the truth of the gosi>el might continue with you” sug- 
gest that at this time the only question raised fxjrtained to the 
Gentiles, and thus is further confirmed by the situation which 
afterwards arose at Antioch, in which the question of fotxls and 
particularly the ob%ation of the Jews in respect to them ajj- 
peaxs as one on which an agreement had not been previously 

n, 4 83 

ITapeta^PXot^at is a verb not uncommon in later Greek, meaning literally 
“ to come in alongside,^' but usually (not, however, in Rom. 5*0) imply- 
ing stealth. See exx., cited by Th.; and esp. Luc. Asin. 15, e£ X65to<; 
xapetg^XGot (Sief.). xairaaxox^o), ‘Ho spy out,” with the associated idea 
of hostile intent, purpose to destroy (Grk. writers from Xenophon 
down, Lxx, here only in N. T.) is here nearly equivalent to “stealthily 
to destroy.” 

^xofiev iv 'KpLarcp ^It^ctov^ which we have in Christ Jesns.^’ 
The preposition eV is probably used here to mark its object as 
the causal ground or basis of the freedom which we possess, 
the person by reason of whom and on the basis of whose work 
we have this freedom. See Th. ev^ I 6c, and Acts 13®® Rom. 
324 and note on v.^^ below. Others (see Ell., e. g., h. L and 
v.^0 tsJce iv in the sense “in mystical union with,’^ a meaning 
which the word sometimes has in Paul. But in view of the 
clear instances of the causal sense both before names of Christ 
and other words, it is certainly to be preferred here where the 
so-called mystical sense itself becomes intelligible only by add- 
ing to it a causal sense, making it mean “by virtue of our 
union with.’^ 

tva Kara^ovX^aovcrLv^ “that they might bring us 
into bondage,” i. e., to the law, implying an already pos- 
sessed freedom. Observe the active voice of the verb, ex- 
cluding the sense to bring into bondage to themselves, and cf. 
4®* 42^5^ Undue stress must not be laid on as meaning 
or including Jewish Christians {cj. on iXevdepiav fjfA&v above), 
yet its obvious reference is to Christians in general, not to Gen- 
tile Christians exclusively. The whole phraseology descriptive 
of these “false brethren” implies, as Weizs. has well pointed 
out (. 4 ^. ZeiL pp. 216-222^ E. T., I 257-263) Aat they were 
distinct and different from the original constituents of the 
church, a foreign element, introduced at a relatively late date, 
distinguished not only from the apostles but from the primi- 
tive dhurch in general, and this not only personally but in their 
spirit and aims. By mrafxmwritiat and tva mraSovXjm'omiv 
Paul definitely charges that these men entered the church for 
a propagandist purpose, that they joined the Christian com- 



munity in order to make it legalistic, and implies that pre- 
vious to their coming non-legalistic views were, if not generally 
held, at least tolerated. Cf. also on 1“ As concerns the apos- 
tle’s reflection upon the character of these men and the un- 
worthiness of their motive, some allowance must necessarily 
be made for the heat of controversy; but that fact does not 
seem to affect the legitimacy of the inferences from his state- 
ment as to the state of opinion in the Jewish church and of 
practice among Gentile Christians. These facts have an im- 
portant bearing on the question of the relation of Paul’s nar- 
rative in this chapter to that of Acts, chaps. 6, 7, 10, ii. The 
recent entrance of these men into the church and the implica- 
tion as to the condition of things before they came suggest that 
the representation of Acts that the Jerusalem church was in 
the early days of its history tolerant of non-legalistic views, 
and not unwilling to look with favour on the acceptance of 
Gentiles as Christians, is not in itself improbable. It is at 
least not in conflict with the testimony of this letter. 

On the use of a future in a pure final clause, see BAf r 198 and cf. 

Lk. i4'» 2o'« Acts 2i«, 28’' Rom. 3‘. 

6. ols oiSk irph^ &pav eX^apev ry WTOTay§, “ to whom not for 
an hour did we yield by way of the subjection (demanded).” 
Though the request that Paul and those with him should yieltl 
was made not by, but because of, the false brethren, he clearly 
saw that to grant the request would be in effect to surrender 
to the latter. Hence the dative here instead of ofJ?, cor- 
responding to Beit row? \l/evBaB4\^vfi. The article before 
vmnarfy is restrictive, showing that the word is used not sim- 
ply with qualitative force, but refers to the particular obedi- 
ence which was demanded. The phrase is therefore epexe- 
getic of ei^afiev, indicating wherein the yielding would have 
consisted if it had taken place, and the negative denies the 
5delding, not simply a certain kind of yielding. This fact ex- 
clude any interpretation which supposes that Paul meant 
simply to deny that he yielded obediently, i. e., to a recognised 
authority, while tacitly admittmg a conciliatory yielding (a« is 

11) 4'-‘S 


maintained by those who hold that he really circumcised Titus). 
For this thought he must have used the dative without the 
article. Cf. Phil, j xhes, 4 ^* 

On Tcpbc; S>pav, meaning “for a short time,” see 2 Cor, 7^ i Thes. 2^’ 
Phm.i®, where, as in the present passage, t&pa is not a definite mea- 
sure of time, a twelfth of a day, but merely a (relatively) short time; 
in the cases cited, some days or weeks; in the present passage 
rather, as we should say in English, “a moment,” “an instant.” C/., 
not as exactly similar instances, but as illustrating the flexibility of the 
word, Mt. 10“ 26<‘>' 

Ok o6Sb xpbq &pav. The reading at this point has been the subject of 
extended discussion, especially by Klostermann, ProhUme %m Apos- 
UUexte, pp. 36 Sief. Com. ad loc.j and Zahn Com. ad loc, and Ex- 
curs. I, The principal evidence may be summarised as follows: 

xpb^ ^!)pav (without ok ouB4) : D* d e plur. codd. lat. et gr. ap. Victorin. 
codd. lat. ap. Hier. al. Iren*'*^- Tert. Victorin. Ambrst. Pelag. 

xpbq iipav: codd. gr. et lat. ap. Ambrst., quidam (codd.?) ap. 
Victorin. Melon, Syr. (psh.), and (aceg. to Sief.) one ms. of Vg. 

ok xpb(; 5pav: Jerome quotes certain persons as asserting: at hoc esse 
quod in codicibus legatur Latinis, ^‘quibus ad horam cessimusJ^ Prima- 
sius (XI 209, quoted by Klostermann, p. 83; cf. Plummer, Com. on 2 
Corinthians j p. Iv) says: Laiinus habet: ^^quibus ad horam cessimus.'** 
Sedulius: Male in Latinis codicibus legitur: ^^quibus ad horam cessimusP 
ok xpb? ^5pav: i<ABCD«<»" FGKLP, 33, and Grk. mss. gener- 
ally, f g Vg. Syr. (psh, hard.) Boh. Arm. Aeth. codd. gr. ap. Hieron.; 
also Bas. Epiph. Euthal. Thdrt. Damas. Aug. Arabr. Hier. 

Klostermann and Zahn adopt the first reading. Tdf. Treg. WH. Ws. 
RV. and modern interpreters generally, the fourth. The evidence 
show.s dearly that the difficulty of the latter reading was early felt, 
and that, for whatever reason, a syntactically easier text was current 
among the Latins. The evidence against ok o5S4, however, is not 
sufficient to overcome the strong preponderance in its favour, or the 
improbability that any one would have introduced the anacoluthic ok. 
But since the reading ol^ without is very weakly attested it re- 
mains to accept the reading which has both ok and oWL 

tpa ^ rod evary^^eXiov 7rpb^ v/m<s, ^‘that 

the truth of the gospel might continue with you/^ The clause 
states the purpose of his refusing to yield. To make it a state- 
ment of the purpose of the yielding as Zahn does, omitting oh 
ovM h, especially in view of the before irrrora^^ to represent 
Paul as making the absurd statement that, in order that the 



truth of the gospel that men are free from law might abide 
with the Gentiles, he yielded to the demand of the legalists and 
did as they required. It is also to convert a paragraph which 
is put forth as an evidence that he had always maintained his 
independence of men into a weak apology for having conceded 
the authority of the Twelve. The term evayyiktov evidently 
has here the same sense as in v.^ and in (c/. the notes on 
those vv., and note word aXrjOeta here). The genitive is a 
possessive genitive, the truth is the truth contained in, and so 
belonging to, the gospel. Cf. v t&p vofMcov ak^ 9 u[a]^ Papyri in 
BriL Mus, II p. 280, cited by M. and M. Voc. The effect of 
the triumph of the view of PauFs opponents would have been 
to rob the Gentiles of the truth of the gospel, leaving them a 
perverted, false gospel. See iL The verb hafisipr) implies 
that at the time referred to the truth of the gosi)el, i, the 
gospel in its true form as he preached it, not in the perverted 
form preached by the judaisers, had already been given to 
those to whom he refers under vfia^. 

np6<; meaning properly towards” and then “with,” usuaily of per- 
sons in company and communication with others (i Thes. 3* 2 The». 2® 
Gal. is here used like p.0ir<Je in Phil. 4^ of the ftresence of an 

impersonal thing with men. The idea of possession is not in tite prep- 
osition, but is suggested by the context and the nature of the thing 
spoken of. may refer specifically to the Galatians, to whom he 
is writing, in which case it is implied that they had already received 
the gospel at the time of this Jerusalem conference. But the more 
general interpretation of as meaning simply “you Ontiles” ia 
so easy, and the Inclusion of tlie (lalatians with the Gentiks in the 
class on behalf of whom Paul then took his stand b m natural, even 
though historically the Galatians only later participated k the teiefit 
of Ms action, that it would be hassardous to lay any great weight on this 
word in the determination of I’hrcmologkid questbnSf The moil that 
can mfely be said is that receives its mc»t obvious in“ 

terprmtion if the Galatians are supposed to have been already in iicwses' 
mn of the gos|>el at the time here referred to. See Introciurtloni p. xlIL 

6. &7rd SI rm Somvprmp dval rt And from those who were 
accounted to be something/^ On r&p etc., cf. 

The verb which this phrase was to have limited is left unex- 
pressed, the construction being changed when tlie thought is 

n, 5, 6 87 

resumed after the parenthesis ottoIol, etc. The apostle doubt- 
less had in mind when he began the sentence TrapeXa^op oifSSr 
(cf, 1^2) or some equivalent expression. The sentence seems 
not adversative, but continuative; to the statement that when 
the pillar apostles took up, in a sense, the cause of the false 
brethren, he did not for a moment yield to the latter, he adds 
as further evidence of his entire independence of the apostles 
that (in this discussion) they taught him nothing new. 

— oTToZo/ TTore fjcrav ovSep pLot Si,a(j>€p€t — what they once were 
matters not to me.’^ ottoIol^ a qualitative word, meaning ^^of 
what kind” (c/. i Thes. i® i Cor. 3^8 Jas. i^^), here evidently 
refers not to personal character but to rank or standing, and 
doubtless specifically to that standing which the three here 
referred to had by reason of their personal relation to Jesus 
while he was in the flesh, in the case of James as his brother, in 
the case of Peter and John as his personal followers. This fact 
of their past history was undoubtedly appealed to by the oppo- 
nents of Paul as giving them standing and authority wholly 
superior to any that he could claim. C/, 2 Cor. 5^® 10^. Paul 
answers here substantially as afterwards to the Corinthians in 
reply to much the same argument, that facts of this sort do 
not concern him, have no significance. Apostleship rests on a 
present relation to the heavenly Christ, a spiritual experience, 
open to him equally with them. The whole parenthetical sen- 
tence, though introduced without a conjunction, serves as a 
justification of the depredation of the apostles which he had 
begun to express in the preceding clause—or perhaps more 
exactly as an answer in advance to the thought which the apos- 
tle foresaw would be raised by that statement when completed, 
viz.: lint if you received nothing from them, that is certainly 
to your disadvantage; were they not personal companions of 
Jesus, the ori^nal and authoritative bearers of the gospel? 
What valid commission or message can you have except as you 
derived it from them? 

With a verb of past tlaxc %Qxi (enclitic) may mean (a) “ever,*^ **at 
any time*'; (b) some **onc€,” formerly*^; (c) ^*ever,” with 
intensive force, like the Latin cunqm^ and the EngHsh “ever” in “who- 



ever,” “whatever.” The last meaning is that which is preferred in 
RV. — “whatsoever they were.” But this use is unusual in classi- 
cal Greek, and has no example in N, T. The second meaning, "on 
the other hand, is frequent in N. T., especially in Paul (chap, 

Rom. 7®, etc.), and is appropriate in this connection, directing the 
thought to a particular (undefined but easily understood) period of 
past time referred to by "Saav. There can therefore be no doubt that 
it is the meaning here intended. The first meaning is not impos- 
sible, but less appropriate because suggesting various possible past 
periods or points of time, instead of the one, Jesus’ lifetime, which gives 
point to the sentence. 

The above interpretation of tcote and substantially of the sentence is 
adopted by Wies. Hilg. Ltft. and many others from the Latin Vg. 
down. Win. and Lip., though taking icoTe in the sense of cunqm^ by 
referring ^aav to the time of Jesus’ life on earth reach substantially the 
same interpretation of the clause. Ell. Sief., et aL, take xotc in the 
sense of cunque^ and understand the clause to refer to the esteem in 
which these men were held at the time of the events spoken of; what- 
soever they were, i. c., whatever prestige, standing, they had in Jeru- 
salem at this time. Sief. supplies as subject for the thought 

“to obtain authorisation from them”; making the sentence mean: 
“ whatever their standing in Jerusalem, it is of no consequence to me 
to secure their authorisation or commission.” But the clause 6x0 lof xott 
^oav (c/. I Cor. 3^) itself is a suitable subject, and the supplying of 
a subject unnecessary. 

— wp6<Tmrov 6€0^ avdp^ov oi Gexi accepts not 

the person of man.’’ To accept the person— literally face— of 
one is to base one’s judgment and action on external and irrele- 
vant considerations. Cf. Mt. 22^® Mk. 12^^ Lk. Such, in 
the judgment of Paul, were mere natural kinship with Jesus, 
such as James had, or personal companionship witlt him during 
his earthly life, such as the Twelve had. Cf. 2 (}or. 5“, where 
Paul uses ip Tpoardyirfp with reference to the realm of external 
things. This second parenthesis in its turn gives a reason jus- 
tifying the statement of the first. The former advantages of 
these men dgnify nothing to me, for God tak« no account of 
such external considerations. Concerning the emphasis on 
see the textual note. 

As between and h «nttemal evidence alone is Indecisive. 

KAP 33, S8, 103, 122,* 443, 463, 1912, Chrys. al Insert the article. 

n, 6 89 

BCDFGKL al. pier. Eus. Thdrt. Dam. omit it. Sheer accident 
would be as likely to operate on one side as on the other. At first 
sight intrinsic probability seems to make for the genuineness of the 
article, since the N. T. writers, and Paul in particular, rarely use 0 e 6 <; 
as subject without the article. Yet the use of 0 e 6 <; without the article, 
because employed with qualitative force with emphasis upon the divine 
attributes, especially in contrast with man, is an established usage of 
which there are numerous examples in Paul (see i Thes. 2* 1 Cor. 2® 
”) and a few in the nominative (i Thes. 2® Gal. 6’' 2 Cor. 5^®). In- 
asmuch, therefore, as there is in this passage just such a contrast, it 
would be in accordance with Pauline usage to omit the article, and the 
balance of intrinsic probability is apparently on this side. Tran- 
scriptional probability is also in its favour, since the scribe would be 
more likely to convert the unusual OeSg into 6 0e6g than the reverse. 

€juol yd,p ol ZoKOvvre^ ovBep vpocravddevro^ “for to me the 
men of eminence taught nothing new.” In these words the 
apostle evidently says what he began to say in am 8k t&v 
8otcQvvTO)v^ giving it now the specific form that the Jerusalem 
apostles imposed on him no burden (of doctrine or practice), 
or imparted nothing to him in addition to what he already 
knew. See discussion of 'irpocavedevro below. 7 a/) may be 
justificatory, introducing a statement which justifies the seem- 
ingly harsh language of the two preceding statements, or ex- 
plicative, the thought overleaping the parenthetical statements 
just preceding, and the new clause introduced by ^dp putting 
in a different form the thought already partly expressed in diro 
8k T&p 8oKOvvrot}v, The latter is simpler and for that reason 
more probable. 

The uses of the verb xpooavaT(6eiJLat (Mid.) clearly attested outside 
of the present passage are three: (i) “To offer or dedicate beside 
Boeckh. C. L G. 2782. (2) “To confer with”: Gal. {q. t>.); Diod. Sic. 
17. ir6<; Luc. Jup. Trag. x. (3) “To lay upon one*s self in addition, 
to undertake besides”: Xen. Mem. 2.1*. Beside these there have been 
pro|)Osed for the present passage: (4) “To lay upon in addition,” L e. 
(3) taken actively instead of with a middle sense. C/, Pollux, 1 9®®. (5) 
(cquiv. to wpoaTfd-rip.t) “To add,” “to bestow something not possessed 
before”: Chiys., cl al.; ( 6 ) (adding to the sense of dvaxfOsjjtai in a* and 
Acts 2S*^ that of in composition, “besides,” “in addition”), “To 
set forth in addition,” i. c., in this conn^tion, “ to teach in addition to 
what I had alroidy icamed.” The word “impiart” in EV. might per- 



haps represent either ’(4), (5), (6), possibly even (2). The first mean- 
ing is evidently impossible here. The second can be applied only by 
taking as an accusative of respect, '‘in respect to nothing did 
they confer with me,’^ and then there still remains the fact that in the 
other instances of the verb used in this sense the conference is chiefly 
for the sake of learning, but here the reference must be to conferring 
for the purpose of teaching. This renders it very difficult, taking the 
word in the sense illustrated in to find in xpoffavaxCOeaBat, 
as Ltft. does, the sense “to impart no fresh knowledge/^ or as Ell 
does, taking as directive only, the meiining “to communicate 
nothing,” “to address no communications.” Zahn, indeed, takes the 
verb as in and interprets the sentence as meaning, “for they laid 
nothing before me for decision, they did not make me their judge.” 
This Zahn interprets as an explanation and ju.stification of o68lv (ioe 
5ta<plpet, in that it gives a reason why he did not regard their high 
standing as he might have been tempted to do if he had been acting 
as judge of their affairs. Vv.’^- then state that, on the contrary, they 
acted as his judges and pronounced favourable judgment on him. The 
interpretation is lexicographically possible, but logically difficult to the 
point of impossibility. It compels the supposition either that in Ipiol 
ol, etc. Paul said the opposite of what he set out to say in dtwb 51 
x6v Soxo6vx(t>v, or else that, having begun in the latter phrase to say 
that from the men of esteem he received a favourable judgment, he 
interrupted himself to belittle the value of their judgment. It maki» 
tlie apostle, moreover, admit a dependence ujxm the pillar aiwstles 
which it is the whole purpose of 0 ^ 2 ^^ to disprove, llic third sense is 
rendered impossible for the present passage by the pr^ence of IjxoL 
‘‘To lay no additional burden on themselves for me” is without mean- 
ing in this connection. The fourth meaning does not occur clsi'where, 
the voucher being only for the reflexive sense (3), “ to lay a burden ufwn 
one^s self.” Sief, infers from the fact that dvaxCBipaa is found in the 
active sense (Xen. Cyr. 8.5*), as well as in the reflexive that the com» 
pound TcpocravaTfOtpuact may also occur in the active sense. The fifth 
sense, though adopted by many interpreters, ancient and mociern, 
seems least defensible, being neither attestetl by any clmr iiwtance 
(unle» Chrysostom^s adoption of it constituto such an instance) nor 
based on attetol use of dvxtfBijP'** The sixth raeanli^ is easily de* 
lived from the absence of any actual occurrence 0! it elsc- 

whwe rendm it, like the fourth, cottj«:turil, but not impoalMe, in 
view of the difficulty of all the well-att«it^ Our dmim ol 

kterpretatioiis must lie bfetw^ the fourth, advocated by Sief. (who 
abo dte for it Bretschn. Rfkk. I^hL Pfleid. Mler, iip.b and the 
dxth. Both mdsfy the ra^uiiroienti of the context— for the apoitk 
is evidently here, m throu^ut the piurtgraph, praenting the evidence 
of his independence of the Jerusalem apostltt. But the skth ia, m 


n, 6-7 

the whole, slightly to be preferred: it is more consonant with the 
thought of d%h hk Tciv Soxo6v'C(i)v, in which the apostle apparently began . 
to say what he here expresses in a different syntactical form, and with 
the words acp6cjo>icov . . . Xatxpcivet, which seem to have been written, as 
pointed out above, in anticipation of these words. 

7. aXXa Tovvavriov tSoWe? ireTrLarevjJLaL to eva^yeX^ov 
T^9 a/cpo^vcTTca^ TrepcrofM'^^;^ ^'but on the con- 

trary when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel 
to the uncircumcised as Peter with the gospel to the circum- 
cised.’’ aXXei (Germ, ^^sondern”) introduces the positive side 
of thej fact which is negatively stated in epLol yap^ etc. The 
participle I86vr€<;^ giving the reason for the fact about to be 
stated, eSoo/cav^ v.®, implies that what they had learned 

led them to take this step, and so that they had in some sense 
changed their minds. There is an obvious relation between 
the words of this v. and v.^. But whether the decision of the 
Jerusalem apostles to recognise Paul’s right of leadership in the 
Gentile field was based on his statement of the content of his 
gospel (v.^), or on his story of how he received it (i^O, or on the 
recital of its results, or in part on the spirit which he himself 
manifested, or on all these combined, is not here stated. The 
last supposition is perhaps the most probable.* 

That Paul regarded the distinction between the gospel of the 
undrcumcision entrusted to him and that of the circumcision 
entrusted to Peter as fundamentally not one of content but of 
the persons to whom it was addressed is plain from that which 
this verse implies and the next verse distinctly affirms, that the 
same God commissioned both Paul and Peter each for his own 
work. It is implied, moreover, that this essential identity of 

• Nor is it wholly dtar precisely to what extent they had changed their minds. If the in- 
terpretation of V. * advocated at that point is correct, thegr had urged the circumcision of 
Tituft on grounds of expexhoncy rather than of principle. They can not therefore have stood 
for the drcumckion of Gentile Christians in general as a matter of intrinsic necessity. But 
whether in aAtm for the circumcision of Titus for the sake of the legalists, they bad also 
askai that for like Paul shouhi circumcise all his Gentile converts, does not clearly ap- 

pmr. Consistency would have required that they shoukl do so, since the circutncMon of 
Titus wuid have had Uttk fig aificanc© if it were not to be regarded as a precedatt. But it 
Is not certain that they were as latmt upon logical consistency m upon securing a pcacriul 
iettlmeat of the mattwr, • 



both, messages was recognised by the Jerusalem apostles as well 
as by Paul; for it was their recognition of the divine source of 
Paul’s apostleship, which of course they claimed for their own, 
that, Paul says, led them to give to him and to Barnabas hands 
of fellowship. At the same time it is evident that Paul, con- 
tending for the right to preach this one gospel to the Gentiles 
without demanding that they should accept circumcision, and 
so to make it in content also a gospel of uncircumcision, ex- 
pected that Peter also would preach it to the circumcised Jews 
without demanding that they should abandon circumcision. 
Thus even in content there was an important and far-reaching 
difference between the gospel that Paul preached and that 
which Peter preached, the difference, in fact, between a legalistic 
and a non-legalistic gospel. But even this difference, it is im- 
portant to note, sprang from a fundamental identity of prin- 
ciple, viz., that the one message of salvation is to be offered 
to men, as they are, whether circumcised or uncircumdsed. 
Whether this principle was clearly recognised by the Jerusalem 
apostles is not certain, but that it was for Paul not only im- 
plidt but explicit seems clear from chap. 5* i Cor. Thus 

for him at least the one gospel itself involved the principle of 
adaptation to men’s opinions and convictions, and conwniuent 
mutual tolerance. And for such tolerance he contended as 
essential. For differences of opinion and practice in the Chris- 
tian community there must lx; room, but not for intolerance of 
such differences. That in other things as well a.s in circumcision 
there might be a difference of practice on the jiart of thost; who 
received the one gospel in accordance with the circumstances 
of those addressed and the convictions of those who preacht*d, 
is logically involved in the decision respecting circumcision, and 
is dearly implied in the terms of v.» (g. ».). But there is noth- 
ing in the present passage to indicate that other matter* 
were explidtly discussed at this time or that the applicability 
of the prindfde to other questions, such, e. g., m clean and un- 
dean foods, the Sabbath, and fasting, was explicitly recognised. 

The genitives tli? ixpopoorfa? and napttojjifls can not be more 
accuratdy described than as genitives of connection, being practlatUy 


n, 7-8 

equivalent to 'cot<; Iv dcxpoguaT^t? (in uncircumcision) and xoiq Tcepcnre- 
TixT3pLlvot<;. Cf. VV. 5 ®' ® and i Cor. 71* Rom. 4*. Both nouns are used by 
metonymy, dxpofuaxfa by double metonymy, the word signifying, first, 
“ membrumviriley^^ then “ uncircumcision, then uncircumcised person 
on the form of the word, see Th. and M. and M. Voc. s, v. The word 
edocyfiXtov, referring primarily, no doubt, to the content of the message 
(cf. on !’'• and detached note on s 6 QCYy 4 :Xiov, p. 422), by the addition 
of the genitives denoting to whom the message is to be presented 
acquires a secondary reference to the work of presenting it. 

For the construction of eOaYyAiov with ', see W. XXXII 5 
(WM. p. 287), Butt., p. 190, and Rom. 3“ i Cor. i Tim. The 
perfect tense has here — and appropriately — its regular force, denoting 
a past fact and its existing result. BMT 74. Its translation by the 
pluperfect is necessitated by the fact that it stands in indirect discourse 
after a past tense. Bilf T 353. 

That in this verse and the following Paul speaks only of himself (as 
also in vv.s- •) and Peter, omitting mention of Barnabas on the one 
side and of James and John on the other, doubtless reflects the fact 
that Paul was recognised as the leader of the work among the Gentiles, 
and Peter as the leader, not indeed of the Jewish Christian church, but 
of the missionary work of the Jerusalem party. When in v.» the refer- 
ence is again to the conference, Barnabas is again named, though after 
Paul, and James is named first among the three Jerusalem apostles. 

8. 0 7 <ip ipepjT^o’a^i Xl^ptp ek ctTroaroX^v Trepcrofifjs: iv-- 
ripyr}<Tev teal ^imoI ek tcl eOvrjy ^‘for he who wrought for 
Peter unto an apostleship to the circumcised wrought also 
for me unto an apostleship to the Gentiles.” This paren- 
thetical V. is confirmatory of the implied assertion of v. being 
intended either as a statement of the reasoning by which the 
pillar apostles reached their conviction there stated, or more 
probably of PauPs own thought by which he supports and con- 
firms their conclusion. Conceding without reserve Peter’s 
apostleship and its divine source, Paul justifies their recognition 
of Ms own claim to apostleship by appeal to Ms own equal and 
like experience of God. 

Whether the appeal is to the inner experience of each by which they 
were endowed for their work, or to the known results, in the way of 
converts, etc., of his work and Peter's, depends upon the precise 
sense in which Paul used the words wid IviJpY’ijtJtv. The tmge 

of IwpYfe in 1 Cor. r3«» where it refers to the work of the Spirit of 



God in men, fitting and endowing each for his own work, suggests the 
first view. But Phil. 2”, where in the second instance Ivepyetv means 
specifically “ to effect, to produce results,’*tshows that Paul might easily 
use the word here with reference to the divine activity in accomplishing 
results through himself and Peter, perhaps preferring it to xotTepY(i^ 
(see Rom. i5^») because it is intransitive and because it more distinctly 
suggests the divine energy by which the results were accomplished. 
The argument on this view would be similar to that of i Cor. but 
also wholly appropriate to the present connection, and more forcible 
than a reference to the inner experience of Peter and himself, which 
would be known only to each of them respectively. 

In 6 ydcp as in some other passages, Paul refers to God 

by a descriptive epithet without the insertion of the word See 

I"* « and notes; Col. 3*®. To understand 6 iwpyijaai of Christ rather 
than God, would not be consistent with Paul’s usual method of expres- 
sion concerning the apostleship. Save where as in Gal. i* the two ideas 
coalesce in the representation of God and Christ as immediate source, 
it is his habit to speak of God as its source and Christ as the agent or 
mediator of it (Rom. 15^® r Cor. 15^® Kph. 3®* ^ C»aL rf. also on 
his use of the verb ivepyid) i Cor. 12® Phil. 

The dative n^Tpcj) is a dative of advantage, not governed by Iv in 
composition, ivepyi}aag not being a verb compounded with Iv, hut de- 
rived from ivepyiiq or Ivipyl*; »= iv effective,” and meaning ‘Uo 

be operative, to work.” 

'AiccxrcoX-i, here as always in N. T. (see Acts Rom. 1® 1 Cor. (f; it is 
otherwise in classical Greek and the Lxx) refers Sfjeeifically to the of lice 
and work of an apostle of Christ; see on ih The omission of the artic le 
gives the word qualitative force. The preiK>8ition t{^ expresses not 
mere reference but purpose or result, or unto the creation of,” 
i. e., so as to make him an apostle.” 

TCEpwop.^*; is here, as in v.^ by metonymy for **the drcumcisecL” 
cR tA I0VTI2 is manifratly a condensed expression equivalent to 
d%Q(noXipf x&v or the like, usM for brevity’s sake or through 
negligence. That dwoertoX’^jv is omitted because of an unwilUngnets on 
Fad’s part to claim ajx)stle8hip for himself is excluded alike by the 
whole thought of the sentence and by xK 

9 . ml Twfrre? So 0 etxrdif ml 

Ki 7^& ml oi Samumef arvXoi €tmi^ 

ifml ml Bappdfif ^*and when, I say, they per- 

edved the grace that had l)een given to me, James and 
Cephas and John, who were accounted to be pillars, gave 
to me and to Barnabas right hands of fellowship.*' These 


n, 8-9 

words resume the thought of v.'', virtually repeating tSc/jiTc? 
Sri rrerrCcrrevfMi, etc., and completing what was there begun. 
It is an overrefinement to attempt to discover a marked dif- 
ference between tSoWe? and ^vovre^. The ‘'grace that was 
given to me’' is manifestly the grace of God or Christ (on the 
word see and detached note p. 423), including espe- 

cially the entrusting to him of the gospel to the uncircumcised 
(v.^), but not necessarily excluding that manifested in the 
results which he had been able to accomplish. Cf, Rom. I**, 
St o 5 [5^;. ^Irjcrov j^ptaTov] ikd^optev fcal aTToaToXrjv 

VTraKOfjV irtarew iv irdcrtv roZ? Wvcatv^ See also i Cor, 3^° 15^® 
Eph. 3^' ® 4^. On the question how the other apostles came 

to recognise that God had given him this grace, cf. on v.^. The 
giving of right hands is in token of a mutual compact, while 
mtvmvCa<i defines that compact as one of partnership. See 
more fully below in fine print. 

The placing of the name of James first is probably the reflection of a 
certain prominence of James in the action here spoken of and of his 
influence in the decision, even above that of Peter. Thus while Peter 
is mentioned in vv. as in some sense the apostle of the circumcision, 
I. e., as the leader in missionary work among the Jews, James was 
apparently the man of greatest influence in the settlement of a ques- 
tion of policy, involving one of doctrine in the more practical sense. 
C/. on vv. ». 

The substitution of rii-rpo? for KtjqxSc, and the placing of it before 
Tcicx««)go<; (DFG d f g Vg. Syr. [psh. hard.] Tert. Hier. al) like the read- 
ing Ilirpov for KiQqpfiv in ( 5 .®-), and n4Tpo<; for Ktq<p(S? in and 
niTpti) for Kiq# in v. is a Western corruption. In vv.’ * on the other 
hand, n^Tpo<; and n^rpci) are undoubtedly the correct readings. 

The custom of giving the hand as a pledge of' friendship or agreement 
existed both among the Hebrews and the Greeks, though probably 
derived by the Hebrews from some outside source. C/. the passages 
cited by Lift, indicating its existence among the Persians (Corn. Nep. 
Pale, xo; Died. Sic. 16, 43*; JustinusXI 15”); and showing its preva- 
lence among the Parthians and other adjacent peoples (Jos. Anl, 18.328 
(9®)); and notice in Gen. 24®* « 25** 3i«‘« 33^®* “ other methods of con- 
firming im agreement or expressing friendship. The Hebrew expres- 
sion is ‘‘to give the hand,” lO;: % Ki. 10*® Exr. 10*® Essek. 17®* x Chr. 

3 Chr. 30® Lam. s®, in the last three instance impl3dng subimssion. 
In writes or x®lp or Stged alone, arc 



used with various verbs, such as Xai^pdcvci), BfScdixi, in speaking of 

pledges received or given: Horn. //.VI 233: xelg&q x* (BXiiXm Xag^TTjv. 
Od, I 121: xeTp' tke Se^iTspiQV. Soph. Fk 813: lp.paXXe xetp^<; 'Jcfaxiv. 
Tr. 1181: ^p^aXXe %etpa Se5t«iv. Xen. An. i. 6«: Be^iAv IXa^ov %a\ ISwxa. 
2. 5®, 5 a?tdc; SeSo^Ji^vac;. In a papyrus of the second century A, D. the 
expression p-fj <puXAaa[c]v aou Tr-iiv Ss^idv, *^not to keep your pledge” 
(Grenfell, Hunt, and Hogarth, Fay Towns and their Papyri^ 
indicates that Segide had acquired the meaning pledge.” In the Jewish 
Greek writings 5 tS 6 vat SeStdiv (or 5 e§tdc<;) is a token of a friendly com- 
pact. See I Mac. 6®» *• 13®® 2 Mac. it*® 13*3; Jos, Ant. 

18. 328 (93), 20. 62 (3*). In none of these cases does the giving of the hand 
indicate submission, but a pledge of friendship, in most cases from the 
superior power to the inferior. Notice esp, the use of SoOvon and Xapefv 
in I Mac. ii«« i3«o 2 Mac. i2“- but also in 2 Mac. 132*, where in the 
case of a mutual compact the same person both gives and receives St^tdev. 
3coiv(ovte<;, ‘‘ fellowship, partnership,” implying a friendly participation in 
the same work (c/. Phil, i*) defines that which the giving of the right 
hands expressed, and to which the givers pledged themselves. It thus 
excludes the idea of surrender or submis.sion which the phrase **to give 
the hand” without qualification (r Chr. 29”) might suggest, or that of 
superiority which usually accompanies its use in 1 and 2 Mac. The 
genitive can hardly be defined grammatically more exactly than as a 
genitive of inner connection. WM. pp. 235/. 

On 8 o5co0vtc<; cxTiXot slvoct, sec note on ol Soxoavirtc, v. *. The term 
“ pillars ” as a designation of those u|K)n whom responsibility rests, is 
found in classical, Jewish, and Christian writers. Thus In Eur. Ipk T. 
57: <rc6Xot ydp o?x<*)v xalSic liatv ri’lsc'h, ^ 4 ^. B98: snrOXov 

wo^pij, povoysvlg tlxvov xarpf. Cf. exx, from Rabbinic writinp in 
Schdttgen, Horae Ilehrakae^ ad loc., and for early Christian writers, sec 
Clem. Rom. 5*, ol piyeoTot xal Botaidrorot <3rT6Xoc, referring to the apostles, 
of whom Peter and Paul are esiiecially named. 

Xva m rh avrol &k €k ri)p wepi^TO/AiJi/* *Uhat 

we should go (or preach the gospel) among the Gentiles, and 
they among the circumcised.’’ A verb such as iKSm^Mv or 
is to be supplied in the first part, and a cor- 
responding predicate for airrol in the second part. On the 
omission of the verb after see Th. tvm 11 4 c, and cf. Rom. 
4^® X Cor. 1®^ 2 Cor. 8*1 The clause defines the content of the 
agr^ment implied in iBmmp . . , mipmpim. See 

BJfr 217 (b) and cf. John 9®*. stands in antithesis to 

and is thus slightly emphatic, but not properly intensive* 

II, 9 


See Butt. p. 107. The whole sentence of v. ® marks the com- 
plete victory of the apostle on this memorable occasion, the 
significance of which lies not in that the apostles approved him, 
which of itself might signify dependence on them instead of 
the independence on which he has been insisting ever since his 
strong affirmation of it in but in that his view prevailed 
as against the opposition of the legalists and the timid com- 
promise which the apostles themselves at first wished to follow. 

Was the division of the field here described territorial or 
racial? Was it understood that Paul and Barnabas were to 
go to Gentile lands, and, though having it as their distinctive 
aim to reach the Gentiles, preach to all whom they found, while 
the other apostles took as their territory the Jewish home 
lands? Or were the Gentiles in any and every land or city 
assigned to Paul and Barnabas and the Jews in the same land 
and city to Peter, James, and John? The use of the terms 
^dvT) and TrepirofX'fi^ which designate the people rather than the 
territory, seems at first sight to indicate a personal, or rather 
racial, division. And no doubt it was this in a sense. The 
basis on which it rested was a difference between Jews and 
Gentiles as peoples, not between the lands in which they lived. 
Unquestionably, too, the mission of Paul and Barnabas was 
chiefly a mission to and for the Gentiles, and that of the others 
to and for the Jews. Yet on the other hand it must be observed 
that Paul has used not a simple dative or *Trp6^ with the accusa- 
tive, but €A9, and that, despite some apparent or even a few 
real excef)tions to the general rule, the distinction between these 
constructions severally, whether we assume here an omitted 
iXdmpsp^ €vay^€Xi<rc!>fjL€0ay or KrjpvaacofjLep, is with a good 
degree of consistency maintained throughout N. T. The dative 
after verbs such as and Krjpvcr. (the rare cases after verbs 

of motion need not come into account here) is a dative of in- 
direct object denoting the persons addressed. Trpd? with words 
denoting persons individually or cqllectively denotes personal 
approach or address; ek with names of places means 
or with personal designations among’’ (i. e., to and 

among), never being used with singular personal nouns (save 



in such special idioms as ek iavrbv eKOeiv)^ but only with 
plurals or collectives. The use of the phrase ek ^dvrj rather 
than rok eOvecrcv^ therefore favours the conclusion that the 
division, though on a basis of preponderant nationality, was 
nevertheless territorial rather than racial. This conclusion is, 
moreover, confirmed by the fact that twice in this epistle 2^) 
Paul has spoken unambiguously of the Gentiles as those among 
(iv) whom he preached the gospel, and that he has nowhere in 
this epistle or elsewhere used the preposition ek after evajje^ 
Xl^ofiat or KTipvaao) to express the thought ^Ho preach to” (on 
I Thes. 2^, the only possible exception, see below). The whole 
evidence, therefore, clearly indicates that the meaning of the 
agreement was that Paul and Barnabas were to preach the gos- 
pel in Gentile lands, the other apostles in Jewish lands. On 
the question whether the division of territory involved a differ- 
ence in the content of the message, see on v. 

For instances of the dative after verbs of speaking, see 4^* i Cor. 3* 
15^' » 2 Cor. ii’^ Rom. 1“ 3** 7* Acts 8® io*K The dative is the most 
frequent construction with For with the accusa- 
tive (occurring only Rev. 10’' after never after 

frequently after xopcfiotjwet and esp. Ipxopuxi), see 1 Thes. 2 Cor. 
!»• « Rom. « Mt to* Lk. Jn. i4»* «. For tk 

with personal nouns, see i Pet. (only instance after when the 
noun is personal, but cf. 2 Cor. 10^*) Mk. i3»»Lk. 24*’' i ^Ihes. 2^ (after 
xiQp6aaw) Mt. Lk. 11*® Acts 22** 26*^ (after dxocrrlXXw and l§a«ci- 

^iXhxd) Jn. 9®* Acts 20** (after Ipxopuxt, IS^px* and i 5 f«;lpx*) Jn. 7®® Acts 

i8« (after xop® 6 The usage of Iv after xnipOaw (chap, 3® Acte q*® a 
Cor. CoL X Tim, 3^*), together with the use of distinctly local terms 
after el*; (Mk. i®® Lk. 4^*), leaves no room for doubt that tl« tiftcr 
XT(}p6acrci> means '‘among’* rather than “unto/* On i Th€«. sec 
Bornttoann ud kc. and on Mk. Lk. 24®% see WM. p. 367. Similar 
reasoning based on the use of the dadve after (chap. 4« 

I Cor. X5*» ® a Cor. ii’ Rom. x^) and the employmmt of the piir»* 
« 5 aYT«^fl^|wtt iv In this epistle (i‘*) and of stoYT- (a Cor. fo»; on 
I Pet. i», nm WM. p. 267) leads to a simikr conclusiion rci|>ecting 
after this verb. Concerning after verbs like w«, etc., Jn. 7*^, 
p-J tic *n*|v Btoeo*opdv t^v 'EXX^vtav pIXXtt x«l 

*BiXXnva9, is particularly Iwitructive since the |)er»t)ns to 
are exprealy distii^iAed from those among (®lc) whom Jesus is niip- 
posed to be going. I! in Acts iS« o^rtalnly verges towards the mean- 

II, g-io 99 

ing “unto’^ (denoting address rather than location), yet the total evi- 
dence leaves no room for doubt that s!? uniformly, or all but uniformly, 
retains its local sense after all the verbs here under consideration. 

10. fJi> 6 vov T&p TTTco^&v Iva /JLvr}/jLov€v(Ofi€P^ ^'providcd only 
that we should remember the poor.’^ eOeXrjaav or some similar 
verb might be supplied before this clause. See QMT 332, 
Butt. p. 241. But it is better in the absence of a verb to make 
the clause co-ordinate in construction with the preceding tva 
clause, tva , . , TveptToixrjv^ and dependent on the idea of 
agreement implied in Sefta? eScofcav, On this understanding 
the clause is not a request added to the agreement, but a part 
of the agreement itself. fi 6 vov limits the whole clause and indi- 
cates that it contains the only qualification of the agreement 
already stated in general terms. On the use of fJLovop^ intro- 
ducing a qualification of a preceding statement or of its appar- 
ent implications, see 5I8, and esp. 1 Cor. fK To the general 
agreement that the field be divided between them, each group 
maintaining entire independence in its own territory, there is 
added as the only qualification of this independence and sep- 
arateness the specification that the apostles to the Gentiles 
shall continue to remember the poor, i, e., manifestly the poor 
among the Christians on the other side of the dividing line (cj. 
Sief. ad loc.). The tense of ixvTjfjLovevccfiep, denoting continued 
action (Bikfr 96), indicates cither that the course of action 
referred to is one which having already been begun is to be 
continued, or that there is distinctly in mind a practice (not 
a single instance) of it in the future. The former as the more 
common implication of a present tense in the dependent moods 
is somewhat more probable. 

S fcal iaTTOvSacra avrh tovto iroc^crai,, ^‘whidhi very tHng I 
. have also taken pains to do.’^ On the strengthening of i by 
see Butt. p. 109. The verb enrovSd^o) in N, T. signi- 
fies not simply to be willing,’’ nor, on the other hand, to do 
with eagerness,” but make diligent effort” to do a thing 
(i llies. 3” of unsuccessful effort; everywhere else in exporta- 
tions); cf. Jth. 13** “ ^^to make haste” to do a thing. Appar- 
ently, thercforci it can not refer simply to the apcBtle’s state of 



mind, but either to a previous or subsequent activity on his part. 
Against the supposition that the reference is to an effort in 
■which Paul and Barnabas had jointly taken part (c/. Acts ii*®) 
is the singular number of ia-TrovScura. A reference to an effort 
on behalf of the poor at that very time in progress is impossible 
in ■view of the meaning and tense of i<r7rovSaaa, to which also 
its singular number adds further force. This would have re- 
quired an imperfect tense, and in all probability, since Barna- 
bas was with Paul at the time, the plural number (notice the 
number of fwrffiovevmiiev) — ia-rrovSd^dfiev iroLelv or hroiovfiev. 
There is apparently a slight hint in the present tense of 
fiVTjiJiovevmfiev of a pre'vious remembrance of the poor on the 
part of one or both of them (it would be overpressing the plural 
to say both of them), in itnrovBaaa a reference to Paul’s subse- 
quent diligence in fulfilling the stipulation then made. 

Respecting the argument of the whole paragraph, it should 
be noticed that while the apostle’s objective point is precisely 
not to prove that he was in agreement with the Twelve, but 
independent of them, yet by the facts which he advances to 
prove his independence he at the same time excludes the inter- 
pretation which his judaistic opponents would have been glad 
to put upon his conduct, viz., that he was in disagreement 
with the Twelve, they right and he wrong, and shows that, 
though they at first disagreed with him as to what was expedi- 
ent to do, in the end they corchally admitted that he was right. 

f. Evidence of his independence of all human authority 
drawn from his conduct in resisting Peter at AnticKh (a”-”). 

In this passage the apostle relates one of the significant 
incidents of the whole series from the point of view of his 
independence of the apostles. Peter, coming down to Antioch 
evidently with no hostile intent or critical spirit, and probably 
arri'ving in Paul’s absence, is attracted by tlie spectacle of Jew- 
ish and Gentile Christians living together in harmony in one 
community, joins himself for the time to this community and, 
following the practice of the Jews of the church, cats with the 
Gentile members. Presently, however, there appeared at An- 


II, lo, 11-14 

tioch certain men who came from Jerusalem as the repre- 
sentatives of James. These men, doubtless contending that 
Peter’s conduct in eating with the Gentiles was not only not 
required by the Jerusalem agreement, but was in fact contrary 
to it, since it involved disregard of the law by Jewish Christians, 
brought such pressure to bear upon Peter that he gradually dis- 
continued his social fellowship with the Gentile Christians. 
So influential was this change in Peter’s practice that all the 
Jewish members of the church ceased to eat with their Gentile 
fellow-Christians, and as a result of this even Barnabas, who 
at Jerusalem had with Paul championed the freedom of the 
Gentiles, also followed Peter’s example. Thus the church was 
divided, socially at least, into two, and by this fact pressure 
was brought upon the Gentiles to take up the observance of 
the Jewish law of foods, since so only could the unity of the 
church be restored. At this point Paul, perhaps returning 
from an absence from Antioch, for it is diSSLCult to suppose that 
matters would have reached this pass while he was present, or 
possibly delaying action so long as the question pertained to 
the conduct of the Jews only, and interfering only when it 
became also a question of the subjection of the Gentiles to the 
Jewish law — at this point, at any rate, Paid boldly rebuked 
Peter, claiming that Peter’s own previous conduct showed that 
he recognised that the law was not binding even upon Jewish 
Christians, and that it was therefore unjustifiable and hypo- 
critical for him, by refusing to eat with the Gentiles, in effect 
to endeavour to bring them under the law. By this incident 
a new phase of the question discussed at Jerusalem was brought 
to the front, viz.; whether the Jewish Christian was also re- 
leased from the obligation to keep the law, as well as the Gen- 
tile; and, by the inclusion of foods as well as circumcision 
among the mattem brought into controversy, the question of 
the obligation of statutes in general was raised. The essentially 
contradictory character of the compromise reached at Jeru- 
salem having also in this way been brought to light, Paid, so 
far from recognising the authority of Peter as the representar 
live of the Jerusalem apostles to dictate his course of action, 



resisted him openly, and following out the logic not of that to 
which he had consented at Jerusalem, viz., the continuance of 
legal practices by the Jewish Christians, but of that for which 
he had contended, viz., the freedom of the Gentiles from ob- 
ligation to conform to the statutes of the law, boldly claimed 
that even Jewish Christians were not under law, and must not 
obey its statutes when such obedience involved compulsion of 
the Gentiles to do the same. In no way could he more ef- 
fectively have affirmed his independence as a Christian apostle 
of all human authority. 

* ^^And when Cephas came to Antioch I resisted him to the face, 
because he stood condemned. ^^For before certain came from 
James he was eating with the Gentiles. But when they came 
he gradually drew back and separated himself^ fearing the 
circumcised. ^^And there joined him in the hypocrisy the rest 
of the Jews alsoj so that even Barnabas was carried along with 
their hypocrisy. ^^But when I saw that they were not pursuing a 
straightforward course in relation to the truth of the gospef I said 
to Cephas in the presence of everybody, If thou, though a Jew, 
livest after the manner of the Gentiles and not after that of the 
Jems, how is U that thou dost constrain the Gentiles to Ike after the 
Jewish manner t 

H. ''Ot€ IfKOev Kri<f>a<i ek fcar^ Trpdcrmrop 

avr^ kprdcrrf)p, fc KareypmrpJpo^ ^p' And when Cephas came 
to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood con- 
demned.’^ The antithesis between the right hands of fellow- 
ship (v, and Paul’s resistance of Peter at Antiodi suggests 
the translation of M by ^^but.” But the paragraph is simply 
continuative of tlte argument begun in and extending to 
and through this paragraph. By one more event in which he 
came into contact with the Jerusalem leaders he enforces his 
argument that he had never admitted their authority over him, 
but had acted with the consciousness of having independent 
gmdana for his conduct. 

The Antioch here r^fewed to Is uaciuatlombly not the Pls^an 
Antioch, but the more famous Syrito city, which b regularly «iKiken 
of m Antioch, without further title to d«lgimte It. See AeU 


II, II-I2 

1119 etfreq. Cf. Acts. i3»<- This temporal clause evidently denotes the. 
time of the fact about to be stated, only in a general way, not as if 
it occurred immediately upon Peter’s arrival; for the following verses 
show that in fact a considerable series of events must have elapsed 
before Paul took his stand against Peter. Concerning the time of the 
whole incident, see Introd, pp. 1/. 

The phrase xaird: xpiSatiiicov conveys in itself no implication of hos- 
tility, but only of ^‘face to face” encounter (Acts 251* 2 Cor. loO- 
dvTiffTTQV reflects the fact that to Paul Peter seemed to have made 
the initiative aggression. For while the verb is used both of passive 
resistance (lit. ‘‘to stand against”) and active counter opposition {cj. 
Acts 13 « 2 Tim. 3®), yet it usually or invariably implies an initiative 
attack in some sense from the other side. This was furnished in the 
present instance by the conduct of Peter, which though not necessarily 
so in intention was in effect an attack on the position which Paul was 
maintaining at Antioch. 

Of the various senses in which the verb xaTaftvc&axti) is used by 
classical writers, two only can be considered here: (a) “to accuse,” (b) 
“ to condemn.” Of these the latter is evidently much more appropriate 
in a clause in which Paul gives the reason for resisting Peter. The 
participle is predicative, and best taken as forming with a pluper- 
fect of existing state (BilfT 90, 91, 430; Gal. 4® Mt. 9*® 26^® Mk. i* 
Lk, I’). It comes to practically the same thing to take xaTeYvoapi^vo^; 
as having the force of an adjective meaning “guilty” (Sief. cites Hero- 
dian, 5, 15^ licetp(STo xa'reYv<»>crp.lvtiv, Luc. De salt 

952; Clem. Horn. 17*®; with which compare also, as illustrating the 
adjectival use of participles in N. T., Acts 8’' Gal. i®* Eph. 2^* 4® 
Col BMT 429). A phrase of agency denoting by whom he had 
been condemned is not in any case necessary, nor is it necessary defi- 
nitely to supply it in thought. Probably Paul’s thought is that Peter’s 
own action condemned him. Notice the following clause introduced 
by Th® perfect is used with similar implication in Rom. 3:4®® 
Jn. 3*»; Jos. Bell 2.135 (8«), cited by Ltft. To supply “by the Gen- 
tile Christians in Antioch” is to add to the text what is neither sug- 
gested by the context nor appropnate to it. For since the purpose of 
the apostle in narrating this event is still to show his own independence 
of the other apostles, a condannation of Peter’s action by the Gentile 
Chmtians in Antioch is an irrelevant detail, and espedally so as the 
rcMon for Paul’s action m rebuking Peter. 

12 . wph Tov ffkp iXOelv kwh fi^erk r&p Idvmv 

For before certain came from James he was eating 
with the Gentiles/^ Not this dause alone but the whole 
sentence (v.^*) givtti the reason why Peter stood condemned, 



and so the proof (ydp) of /careyvcoo-fji^vo^:, iOv&v refers, of 
course, chiefly or exclusively to the Gentile Christians, as in 
Rom. 15^® i6\ and in below, and crvvrjaOcev^ without doubt, 
to sharing with them in their ordinary meals, as in Lk. 15^ Acts 
1 1®. The imperfect tense implies that he did this, not on a single 
occasion, but repeatedly or habitually. The significance of the 
act lay in the fact that he thereby exposed himself to the lia- 
bility of eating food forbidden by the 0 . T. law of clean and 
unclean foods (Lev. chap, ii), and thus in effect declared it not 
binding upon him.* The question thus brought to the front 
was, it should be clearly observed, quite distinct from that one 
which was the centre of discussion at Jerusalem. There it was 
the obligation of the Gentile Christian to observe the law, and 
particularly in the matter of circumcision; here it involves the 
obligation of the Jewish Christian to keep the law, and par- 
ticularly in the matter of food. By his action in eating with 
Gentile Christians, whose freedom from the law had been ex- 
pressly granted at Jerusalem so far as concerned circumcision, 
and who had doubtless exercised a like freedom in respect to 
foods, Peter went beyond anything which the action at Jeru- 
salem directly called for, and in effect declared the Jew also, 
as well as the Gentile, to be free from the law. It does not 
indeed follow that he would have been prepared to apply the 
principle consistently to other prescriptions of the law, and to 
affirm, e. g., that the Jemsh Christian need not circumcise his 
children. Nevertheless^e broad question whether any statute 
of the law was binding upon Gentile or Jew was now brought 
out into clear light, and on this question Peter by Ms conduct 
took a position which was of great significance* 

Yet it can scarcely have been Peter’s conduct that first rmsed 
the question. The custom of Jewish Christians eating with 
Gentiles he no doubt found in existence when he came to 
Antioch and fell in with it because it appealed to him as right, 
although contrary to his previous practice. It is wholly im- 

•Chi the Jewish fedkg Jeir» «tloiwt'th ws JuWI. aa*« Tok ** 

Om. X* &th. I»c dmp. aS Jtk 3 Mac. y* n Jm, 4^1. 4 «i 35 r. (6*); clt^ by Bem. 14. 
d, P* IWJ Act! 10** xiK 

probable that not finding it in existence he himself suggested 
it, or that if he had already been in the habit of eating with 
Gentiles in Judea, he would have been deterred from continu- 
ing to do so in Antioch by the arrival of the messengers from 
James. The Antioch practice was clearly an expression of the 
freedom in Christ Jesus” which Paul advocated, but in all 
probability a new expression, developed since the conference at 
Jerusalem (vv.^*^^). It was probably only after that event, in 
which the full Christianity of the Gentile Christians was recog- 
nised even at Jerusalem, that the Jewish Christians at Antioch 
gained courage to break over their scruples as Jews, and eat with 
their Gentile brothers in the church. Nor is there any special 
reason to think that Paul would have pressed the matter at the 
beginning. Concerning, as it did, not the freedom of the Gen- 
tiles, but the adherence of the Jews to their own ancestral custom 
enforced by O. T. statute, in consistency with his principles (x 
Cor. and the course he pursued at Jerusalem, where he 
stood for the freedom of the Gentiles but assumed apparently 
without demurrer that the Jews would continue to observe the 
law, it would probably seem to him not a matter to be pressed, 
but left to the gradual enlightenment of the Jewish Christians 
themselves. It is difficult to see, moreover, how, if the Jewish 
Christians in Antioch had before the conference at Jerusalem 
already begun to disregard the Jewish law of foods, this should 
not have been even more a burning question at Jerusalem 
than the circumcision of the Gentiles. Certainly it would 
have been more difficult for the legalistic party to yield in 
the former than in the latter matter. Probability, therefore, 
points to the time between PauFs return to Antioch and 
Peter’s arrival there as that in which the Jewish Christians 
at Antioch began to eat with their Gentile brethren. 

If this is correct it furnishes, moreover, a natural explana- 
tion of the visit to Antioch both of Peter and of the representa- 
tives of James. If news of this new departure at Antiodh. had 
come to Jerusalem it might easily seem to Peter tJiat inasmuch 
as it affected not simply the Gentiles, but also the Jewish 
Christians, it concerned him as the apostle of the latter to 



know what was going on. Especially would this be the case 
if there was any uncertainty in his mind as to whether the divi- 
sion of the field agreed to at Jerusalem assigned to him the 
Jews, or Jewish lands. See on 2®, Even if he had come ex- 
pecting to disapprove whAthie found, it would be by no means 
uncharacteristic of him that, captivated with the picture of 
Christian unity which he saw, he should, instead of reproving, 
have himself adopted the new custom. And if in turn news of 
this state of affairs, including Peter’s unexpected conduct, 
reached Jerusalem, this would furnish natural occasion for the 
visit of the representatives of James; for to James as well a.s to 
the more extreme legalists such conduct might seem not only 
to violate the Jerusalem agreement, but to create a most seri- 
ous obstacle to the development of the Christian faith among 
the Jews. 

And this in turn makes clear the important fact that the 
situation at Antioch was not the result of repudiation of the 
Jerusalem agreement by any of the parties to it, but was .sim- 
ply the coming to the surface of the contradictory conviction.s 
which were only imperfectly harmonised in the compromise in 
which the Jerusalem conference issued. A new aspect of the 
question which underlay the discussion at Jerusalem had now 
come to the front and raised a question concerning which pre- 
cisely opposite decisions might easily seem to <liffcrent persons 
to be. involved in tire Jerusalem decision. I'he brethren at 
Antioch might naturally seem to themselves to be only follow- 
ing out what was logically involved in the Jerusalem decision, 
when they found in the recognition of uncircumdsed Gentile 
believers as brethren the warrant for full fellowship with them 
on equal terms, and, in the virtual declaration of the non- 
cssentiaUty of drcuracision, ground for the inference tlvat the 
O. T. statute were no longer binding, and ought not to be 
observed to the detriment of the unity of the Christian com- 
munity. The Jerusalem brethren, on the other hand, might 
with equal sincerity maintain that they had never expressed or 
intimated the belief that the Jews could disregard the statutes 

the law, and that the tadt underatimding of the Jerusalem 

n, 12 


decision was that these statutes should be regarded as still in 
force for the Jews, whatever concessions were made in respect 
to the Gentiles. It was this derivation of contrary conclusions 
from the Jerusalem compromise and Peter’s wavering between 
the two interpretations that created the Antioch situation. 

Whether dtxb ’Iax(!)^ou limits or IXOstv it is impossible to deter- 
mine with certainty. The fact that the subject of an infinitive some- 
what more frequently precedes it than follows it (see Votaw, Inf. in 
Bib. Gr. p. 58; cf. Mt. 6 ^ Lk. 22»«; contra Lk. 2^^ Gal. 3®®) slightly favours 
explaining the position of 'vtv&q as due to the desire to bring it into 
connection with Taxcigou. Yet the rarity of any limitation of an 
indefinite pronoun by any phrase except a partitive one is against this 
construction. In either case the mention of the personal name, James, 
the same, of course, who is named in v. “ and in i^®, implies that the 
persons spoken of were sent by him or in some sense represented him. 
That they did not belong to those whom in v.^ Paul calls false breth- 
ren'' is probable not only from the fact that Paul does not so describe 
them, but designates them as representing James, who was of the 
mediating party, but also from the fact, brought out above, that these 
messengers of James to Antioch probably contended not for obedience 
to the Jewish law by Gentile Christians, but for the keeping of the Jeru- 
salem compact as they not unnaturally interpreted it. 

St€ Bk ^jXOoVy im'^cTTeWev fcal afxlopL^ev iavT^p^ ^o/3ov/jl€vo9 
TOW ifc 7r€pLTo/jLi]q. ^‘But when they came, he gradually drew 
back and separated himself, fearing the circumcised.” The verb 
wro<rT^X<w, used, especially by Polybius, of the drawing back 
of troops in order to place them under shelter, itself suggests 
a retreat from motives of caution; iavrSv is the object of 
both verbs. The imperfect tense is very expressive, indi- 
cating that Peter took this step not at once, immediately on 
the arrival of the men from James, but gradually, under the 
pressure, as the next phrase implies, of their criticism. The 
force of the tense can hardly be otherwise expressed than by 
tlie word gradually.” For a possible parallel instance of tlie 
use of the tense, sec Acts IS*". The circumcised from fear of 
whom Peter reversed his course of action are manifestly those 
Jewi^ Christians who came from James. That Peter should 
have been to such an extent under their domination illustrates 



both his own instability and the extent to which the legalistic 
party had developed and acquired influence in the Jerusalem 
church and Jewish Christianity generally. In view of this 
statement it is by no means incredible that at that later time 
referred to in Acts 21^0 such a situation as is there described 
should have developed. Cf, on 

“'HXeev (understood by Origen (i««) to refer to James, IX 06 vi:o«: 
*Iax<i)gou) though supported by XBD*FG 39, 442, and the old Latin 
must be either a primitive error or a Western corruption. See WII. 
Introd. p. 224, and App. p. 12 1. The reading iiXOov is supported by 
ACD^ oEHKLP, the great body of later manuscripts and the ancient 
versions with the exception of the old Latin. 

IlepiTo^T^ is probably not used here as above, by meton3any for *Hhe 
circumcised^' — observe the presence of the article there and its omis- 
sion here — ^but in its proper sense. The preposition expresses source, 
i. €., not of existence but of standing and character (cf. Th. lx, 11 7, 
though the characterisation of the use is not quite broad enough), and 
the phrase means simply ‘^the circumcised," “the Jews." This rather 
than “converts from Judaism" (Lift.) seems to be the regular sense of 
this phrase, found also in Rom. 4^* Col. 4“ Acts io« ii®. Cf. the ex- 
pression 6 lx irforew?, chap, 3^' * Rom. 3*® 6 lx v6pou, Rom. 4”; see also 

Gal. 310. 

13, Kal (Tvvu7r€Kp{6r](Tap avr^ KaX ol XocttqX ’louSaZot, 
fcal ’Bapvdfim avva7ri})(d7} avr&v xnroKplfxa' And there 
joined him in the hypocrisy the rest of the Jews also, so that 
even Barnabas was carried along with their hypocrisy/’ Hy- 
pocrisy, consisting essentially in the concealment of one’s real 
character, feelings, etc., under the guise of conduct implying 
something different {mrQtcplv€<T 6 <u^ is ^Ho answer from under,” 
L from under a mask as the actor did, playing a part; cf. 
Lk. 20^®), usually takes the form of concesding wrong feel- 
ings, character, etc., under the pretence of better ones. In the 
pr^ent case, however, the knowledge, judgment, and feelings 
which were concealed were worse only from the point of view 
of the Jews of whom Peter and those who joined with him 
were afraid. From Paul’s point of view it was their better 

* 0» Uie compound §m FoJyb. 3. pi*, $. 49*; Hut. Murim» 14^; hirt 


n, 12-14 


knowledge which they cloaked under a mask of worse, the usual 
type of hypocrisy which proceeds from fear. By the charac- 
terisation of this conduct as hypocrisy Paul implies that there 
had been no real change of conviction on the part of Peter and 
the rest, but only conduct which belied their real convictions. 
“The rest of the Jews’’ are manifestly the other Jewish Chris- 
tians in Antioch, from which it is evident that it was not Peter 
only who had eaten with the Gentile Christians but the Jewish 
Christians generally. That even Barnabas, who shared with 
Paul the apostleship to the Gentiles, yielded to the pressure 
exerted by the brethren from Jerusalem shows again how 
strong was the influence exerted by the latter, 

Kcti (after aO-rv) is the reading of KACDFGHEXP al. pier, d g 
Syr. (psh. hard) Arm. Aeth. Victorin. Ambrst. Hier. Or, It is 
omitted by B f Vg. Boh. Goth. Or. (Sout.). Neither external nor 
mtemal evidence is decisive; but its oimssion from the small number 
of authorities which do not contain it, either from pure inadvertence 
or from a feeling that it was superfluous, seems somewhat more prob- 
able than its addition to the great body of authorities. 

Tb Oicoxpfaet may be either a dative of accompaniment — “swept 
along with their hypocrisy” — dependent on the a6v in composition 
(c/. Eph. Phil. Rom. 12^^ ^freq.) or perhaps, a little more prob- 
ably, a dative of agent, “by their hypocrisy,” “with them” being im- 
plied in ff6v. On the use of the verb auvaiccicT’ca, found also in Xen. and 
Lxx, cf. esp. 2 Pet, 

14. aXX* Sre eWov Stl ov/c opdoToSovcrcv Trph rrjv aXi]6€Lav 
rov evayyeXioVj “ But when I saw that they were not pursmng 
a straightforward course in relation to the truth of the gospel.’* 
The natural implication of this sentence and indeed of the pre- 
ceding narrative is that all the events thus far related, the com- 
ing of tibe emissaries of James, the retreat of Peter from his 
first position, the like action of the rest of the Jewish Christians 
and even of Barnabas, took place before Paul himself took a 
position of open opposition to Peter. Had Paul, then, been 
in Antioch all this time, either holding his peace while the 
whole Jewish element in the church took a position which he 
judged to be wrong, or unable, without open opposition to 



Peter, to stem the tide, and reluctant to resort to this? The 
latter alternative is the more probable, if he was actually 
present. But the most probable explanation of the facts, 
neither directly supported nor opposed by anything in the pas- 
sage itself, is that Paul was absent during the early part of 
Peter’s stay in Antioch. 

It is indeed possible to suppose that Paul’s activity in the matter 
was due not to his arrival in Antioch but to a new perception (note the 
word eISov) of the significance of the question at issue. Possibly he 
himself had not, till this controversy cleared the air, seen how far the 
principles of the gospel that he preached must carry him in his anti- 
legalism, had offered no active opposition to Peter’s attempt to bring 
the Jewish Christians under the law, and only when the movement 
began to spread to the Gentile Christians (see v. Jin,) saw dearly 
that the only position consistent with the gospel was that if the law 
was not binding upon the Gentile, neither could it be really so upon 
the Jew, and that when obedience to it by Gentile or Jew became an 
obstacle in the way of the gospel, then both Jew and Gentile must 
cease to obey its statutes. But on this hyix)thcsis Paul himself was 
involved only less deeply than Peter in the latter’s confusion of thought 
and it is therefore hardly likely that he would have spoken in the 
words of sharp condemnation of Peter which he employs in v. » and in 
this verse. 

The verb 6 p 0 oTco 8 ^<i>, used only here (and in later eccL writers where 
its use may be traced to this passage, Ltft.), means to madee a straight 
path” rather than **to walk erect.” C/. 6p66xo8ic ^(vovrig, Nicander, 
AL 419; and Sophocles, Greek Lexicon of Rom. and Byz. Period. Cf. 
Paul’s frequent use of TcepercaT^ta, “to walk,” as a figure for moral con- 
duct, chap. Pom. 6 * 8*, etc. Thie present word is apimrently not simply 
a general ethical term for doing right, but, m the context implies, 
denotes straightforward, unwavering, and sincere conduct in contrast 
mth the puisuing of a crooked, wavering, and more or less insincere 
course, sudh as Paul has just attributed to Peter and those who fol- 
lowed him. The present tense dm:rib^ the fact from the point 
of view of Paul’s orii^nal perception of it— “fhey are not acting 
stxiughtforwardiy.” It is not, however, a historic^ promt (Sief.) 
but promt of the direct form retdned in indirect dlscoune even 
afta: a past tense ^{BMT $41 (bl). The pr^^^tion probably 
means “towards,” “in relation to” (chap. 2 Cor* Col 4^)» and 
the |fca»© wp6c . . . f6«xT- oonstituto a definitive limitation of 
^pOowoSoaeiv, yiriding the smse “pureue a straight course In relation 
to the truth of the “to deal honadiy and conristentiy with it, 


n, 14 

not Juggling, or warping, or naisrepresenting it.’’ Tp6<; may indeed 
mean ‘‘in conformity with” (Lk. 12*^ 2 Cor. 51“ Eph. 3^; so Th. Ltft. 
Ell. Sief.), and the phrase constitute an epexegesis of fipOoicoSouatv, 
yielding the sense “pursuing a straightforward (righteous) course, viz., 

' one in accordance with the truth of the gospel.” But the fact that 
Paul regularly employs Ttardc with TuepticaT^o) in the sense “in con- 
formity to” (2 Cor. lo^' * Rom. 14*® etc.) is against this latter view, 
while the former is more in accordance with the context, which refers 
not so much to conformity to the truth of the gospel as to an attitude 
(of straightforwardness or crookedness) towards it. The interpretation 
of in the sense of (motion) towards, making the truth of the gospel 
the goal of their action, involves a sense possible to icp6<;, but out of 
harmony with the context. The phrase, “the truth of the gospel,” is 
doubtless used here in the same sense as in v. «, q, v. 

cIttov epLTrpocrdev 'irdvrm “I said to Cephas in 

the presence of everybody.’’ The omission of the article before 
^dvrcov makes the statement very general, not simply before 
those who have just been mentioned (rS>v rravrcop) but when all 
the members of the church were present. Cf. i Cor. ii^® 14 ^, 
and esp. i Tim. 

How much of what follows was actually uttered on this occa- 
sion it is impossible to say with certainty. Only the first sen- 
tence (v. contains unmistakable evidence of having been 
addressed to Peter, and the absence of any direct address in the 
remainder of the chapter makes it unlikely that through the 
whole of it Paul is still quoting what he said to Peter. Yet on 
the other hand it is improbable that he intends to limit his 
report of his words on that occasion to a single sentence. He 
passes imperceptibly from the report of his former words into 
argument on the theme itself, and the line between the two 
can not be detected. 

E atf TovSam? {rrrdpyp^v i0pc/c&<; /cal *lovSal/cm 
7rm rd Wvn] hva/yfcd^€L<; ^'If thou, though a Jew, 

livest after the manner of the Gentiles, and not after that of 
the Jero, how is it that thou dost constrain the Gentiles to live 
after the Jewish manner?” The terms iOvucm and ^lovZamm 
manifestly refer to the living according to Gentile and Jewish 
customs respectively, especially in the matter of foods. The 



conditional clause evidently refers, as is often the case with a 
simple present supposition, to an admitted fact. (BMT 244.) 
It is an overpressing of the present tense to maintain that it 
must refer to an act at that very time in progress, which is 
plainl y excluded by the preceding narrative. Grammatically 
it is doubtless to be taken not as a present for an imperfect, but 
as a general present, describing a habit or mental attitude which, 
being illustrated by a recent act, may itself be assumed to be 
still in force (c/. Mk. 2^ Mt. 12** Acts 22’’’ » 23®- * Ps. Sg"- “). 
The use of it implies that Peter had not really in principle aban- 
doned the Gentile way of life, though temporarily from fear 
returning to the Jewish way of living. In English we should 
probably say in such a case, “If you can live,” or “If your 
convictions permit you to live.” Over against this recent prac- 
tice Paul forcibly sets forth Peter’s inconsistency in compelling 
the Gentiles to follow the Jewish mode of life. The words 
ivay/ed^eK ’lovSat^eiv are of crucial importance for the under- 
standing of Paul’s position. They show what he regarded as 
the significance if not the deliberate intent of Peter’s conduct 
in refusing longer to eat with the Gentile Christians. Under 
the circumstances this amounted not simply to maintaining the 
validity of the Jewish law for Jewish Christians, but involved 
the forcing of Jewish practices upon the Gentile Christians. 
By his refusal any longer to eat with them and by the adoption 
under his infl uence of the same course on the part of the Jew- 
ish members of the Antioch church, he left to the Gentiles no 
choice but either to conform to the Jewish law of foods, or suffer 
a line of division to be drawn through the church. It was this 
element of coercion brought to bear on the Gentile Christians 
that made the matter one of direct concern to Paul. Against 
efforts to maintain the observance of the Jewish law on the part 
of Jewish Christians, he would doubtless have had nothing to 
say so long as they were confined to Jewish communities, con- 
cerned the Jews oifly, and did not affect the Gentiles. Had 
Peter, when he came to Antioch, chosen from the first to abstain 
from eating with the Gentiles on the ground that his relation 
to the Jewish Christians made it inexpedient, Paul would prob- 

n, 14 

ably have made no objection. But when Peter, having first 
associated freely with the Gentiles, afterwards under pressure 
from the men that came from James, drew back, carrying all 
the other Jewish Christians with him, and forcing the Gentile 
Christians to choose between subjection to the Jewish law and 
the disruption of their church, this conduct involved an inter- 
ference with the freedom of the Gentiles which was of most 
vital concern to Paul as the apostle of the Gentiles and de- 
fender of their freedom. That he interpreted the creation of 
such a situation as a forcing of the Gentile Christians to judaise, 
ignoring the possibility of escape from this by creating a divi- 
sion of the church, is itself of significance as showing how im- 
portant to him was the maintenance of the unity of the church 
as against any division into Jewish and Gentile wings, and con- 
firms the interpretation given above to 7rm . . . eSpafwp 
(v.2), and of rh Wvrj (v,®). 

To the men who came from James it might have seemed an entirely 
feasible course that the Gentiles should constitute a separate — from 
their point of view a second-rank — Christian body. Has not a similar 
thing sometimes happened for other reasons on a modern mission 
field? They might have justified their course in the matter on the 
ground that they were not dictating to the Gentile Christians what 
course they should pursue; it did not concern them which horn of the 
dilemma the Gentiles chose, whether they elected to observe the Jew- 
ish law, or to constitute a separate body from the Jewish believers; 
they were concerning themselves only with the conduct of Jewish 
Christians. h]ven Peter might have assumed somewhat the same posi- 
tion, maintaining that he was dealing only with the question of the 
obligation of the Jews in the matter of foods; for the action of the 
Gentiles the latter were themselves responsible. To Paul the matter 
did not appear thus. To a territorial division of the field he had 
indeed consented at Jerusalem; but the creation of a division between 
the Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Gentile territory was evidently 
to him intolerable and out of the question. 

Thus in the maintenance of the freedom of the Gentiles Paul 
was forced to take a position respecting the validity of the law 
for the Jews and concerning the unity of the Christian com- 
munity in Gentile cities. The former at least was decidedly in 


1 14 

advance of the position taken at Jerusalem, though logically 
involved in it. The Jerusalem decision was essentially a com- 
promise between contradictories, the validity of the law, and 
its non-validity. The practical decision that the Jewish Chris- 
tians should continue to observe the law and the Gentiles be 
free from it left it undecided which of these principles should 
talre precedence over the other when they should come into 
that conflict which was sooner or later inevitable. The visit of 
Peter to Antioch and the subsequent arrival of the men from 
James precipitated the conflict. The Jerusalem brethren prac- 
tically took the position that the first half of the Jerusalem 
agreement must be kept at any cost — the Jewish Christian 
must keep the law whatever the effect in respect to the Gentile 
Christians. Paul, carrying to its logical issue the principle 
which underlay the position which he had taken at Jerusalem, 
maintained that the Gentile Christians must not be forced to 
keep the law, even if to avoid such forcing the Jews themselves 
had to abandon the law. In Antioch much more clearly than 
at Jerusalem the issue was made between legalism and anti- 
legalism. It was incidental to the event at Antioch, but from 
the point of view from which Paul introduced the matter here, 
a matter of primary importance that on this occasion more 
decisively than ever before he declared his independence of 
Jerusalem and her apostles. 

The oldest and most trustworthy mss. are divided between oOx 
and o 4 x( before TouSatsiii?, the former bdng the readit^ of H*ACP 
31, 33, the latter that of K«BD* and a few curaives. D''»*«FGK*“L 
and most of the cutmves read o6x. WH., adopting 06* with the margin: 
“o 4 x MSS.” apparently judge that ofix is a prinutive error and ofixf 
a derivative from it. But the grounds of this dedsion are not easy to 
discover. In view of Acta a' Rom. 3*', oixf can not be judged to be 
impossible, and in view of its strong attestation is probably to be 
accqtted as the original reading, of which o 4 x Is a corruption arishig 
from the accidental omission of one t, or from the substitution of the 
more familiar few the less familiar form. 

IlOc used as hoe in the »mse of “how is It that,” nearly equivaleat 
to “why,” mqmsdbg surprise or di^lmure, is of not uncommon 
occurrence both In dasMcal and bibUical writers. See Horn. 11. IV ad; 
Aesch. Pm. 798; S<^. El. 407; Mt. aa** Jn. 4* Acts a*, etc. 

ir, I- 1 4 


’ Avayxcit^stq is undoubtedly conative, referring not to an accomplished 
result, but to the intention or tendency of Peter’s action. BUT ii. 

’louSatt^etv, ^‘to follow the Jewish way of life”; f. e.^ to observe the 
Jewish law, occurs in the same sense in the Lxx of Esth. xal iQoXkoX 
n:^ 5 v I 0 vc 5 v TOptsTl't^vovTO xal iouSdtl^ov St(S: Tbv qj6^ov twv lou Sa((ov, in 
Ignat. Mag, lo*: dtTO'jc6v Icttiv 'iKjffoOv Xptarbv XaXetv xal JouScttl^etv, 
and in Ev, Nic. 2; Plut. Cic, 7*. In the sense ‘^to favour the Jews,” it 
is found in Jos. Bell. 2. 463 (18*). 

'louSato? 6‘3Ccipxo>v, standing in opposition to lOvtxw? is conces* 
sive. The view of Ltft. that 6xcipxo)v has reference to the original, 
natural state, being nearly equivalent to (p6ast cSv, is but slenderly 
supported by evidence. Certainly this is not the invariable force of 
6xd(px(»> in N. T. Cf. chap, Acts 2»o 4**, etc. 

The term occurs here only in Bib. Gr.; elsewhere only in 

later writers; cf. eOvixdi;, Mt. 5^^ 6^ 18^’ 3 Jn. TouSatxfii? occurs 
here only in Bib. Gr.; elsewhere in Jos. Bell. 6, 17 (i*); c/. TouBatxdg, 
Tit. 1^* 2 Mac. 13*1; Jos. Ant. 20. 258 (iiO* On the meaning of see 
note on p. 134. 

GAL. 2I-W AND ACTS, CHAPS. 10, ii, 15. 

The discussion of the bearing of the historical data furnished by 
this chapter on the interpretation and criticism of the narrative of 
Acts belongs rather to the interpretation of the latter book than to 
the present task. It may not be amiss, however, to point out certain 
results of the interpretation of Galatians which are of concern to the 
student of the life of Paul. 

1. A visit of Paul to Jerusalem between those of Gal. and 2* is 
practically excluded by the evidence of the letter. Cf. pp. 67/. 

2. The tense of pLvir)p,ovei!j(i> (2*0) naturally suggests relief already ren- 
dered (cf. p. 100), either on that occasion, or a former one, or both. 
If on a former occasion, this may not improbably have involved a visit 
to Jerusalem by Barnabas, not by Paul; but Paul may have co-oper- 
ated in other ways. Cf. the discussion of the date of the letter on p. Hi. 
If the reference is to the visit of 2»-io only, the Acts narrative has 
apparently converted a single visit with two errands into two visits 
with different errands. 

3. The subject for the discussion of which Paul went to Jerusalem 
on the omision recorded in 2> was specifically the necessity of circum- 
dsing Gentiles who believed in Christ and wished to join the Christian 
community. Cf. on vv.®**, pp. 69, 75 

4. The defenders of the freedom of the Gentiles were Paul and Bar- 
nabas, Titus being present also as a representative of the Gentile de- 
ment in the <^urch from which Paul and Barnabas came, praumably 



5. Paul presented the matter in Jerusalem both publicly, and pri- 
vately before the eminent men of the church, James and Peter and 
John. Cf. on v. K 

6. These latter at first, for the sake of certain extreme legalists who 
had recently come into the church, desired that Titus should be cir- 
cumcised, but finally, convinced by Paul’s presentation of his gospel, 
yielded and gave their cordial assent to the prosecution of the Gentile 
mission according to the convictions of Paul, reserving to themselves 
the work among the Jews. C/. on vv.'‘- 

7. Of any discussion at Jerusalem of the question of the obligation 
of the Gentile Christians in respect to foods there is no intimation in 
Paul’s narrative; and any decision restricting their liberty in this mat- 
ter is decisively excluded by the statement that the only qualification 
of the entire and strict division of the field between himself and Peter, 
with implication that each wos to follow his own conviction in his own 
field (since without this implied provision the question that was raised 
was still as much unsettled as ever), was that he and Barnabas should 
remember the poor of the Jewish Christian community. Cf* p. 99. 

8. Paul’s account of the subsequent incident at Antioch also excludes 
the possibility of fellowship between Jews and Gentiles in the church 
having been agreed to at Jerusalem cither on the basis of the Gentiles 
conforming to the Jewish law of foods or of the Jews disregarding their 
law. It is practically certain, therefore, that the practice of Jewish 
and Gentile Christians eating together in disrcganl of the Jewish law 
arose at Antioch, independent of any <lecision at Jerusalem, and prob- 
ably subsequent to the Jerusalem conference. Cf* on vd% p. 105. 

9. What the previous practice of the Gtmtile Christians at Antioch 
was is nowhere explicitly stated. It is highly improbable, however, 
that the silence of the Jerusalem conference with reference to food was 
due to the Gentiles having already adopted the Jewish law of food. 
Having refused to be circumcised, as the case of Titus shows they hail, 
it is not likely that they conformed to the law in respect to food. But 
if not, the Jerusalem legalists, since they did not pn?as the question of 
food in the Jerusalem t'onference, were less insistent on conformity t<* 
the law in respect to this matter than in reference to circumcisiim, or 
in respect to the former matter were unable to gain from the pillar 
apostles the measure of supimrt that they obtainal in res{>t!rt to thi‘ 
ktter. In either vm) it is evident that the Jcrusah*m church dal 
not in the early days insUt Ui^m the Gentlli; Cliriatlana praci!»irig a 
thoroughgoing and consistent k^alism. 

10. The reference of Paul to the recent Incoming of the extreme legal • 
istk element into the Jerusalem church, and the evidence of C* (q* %) 
also indicate that the Jerusalem church was at first dis|Km! to b,? 
hospitable towards the ac'ceptance of Gentiles as Christians, mid tlnif. 
the qutttkm wm not an acute one until it banime so throu||!i the In* 

n, i~i4, is~2i 1 17 

coming of the legalistic dement. When this occurred the Jerusalem 
apostles endeavoured to conciliate the legalists, but by conviction at 
first, and at length on the practical question also, sided with Paul so 
far as concerned the freedom of the Gentiles. Cf, pp. 77, 97. 

11. This being the case, though Paul does not specifically mention 
the coining of the legalists to Antioch, such a visit is the most prob- 
able explanation of his coming to Jerusalem. 

12. The presence of these men in the private conference at Jerusalem 
is excluded by the very assertion that it was private, but there is noth- 
ing in it either to prove or disprove their presence in the public con- 

13. The impossibility of identif3dng the event which Paul narrates 
in with the visit of Acts {cf. 2 above), and the many simi- 
larities between PauFs narrative in 21-1® and that of Acts 15 make it 
necessary to suppose that these latter both refer to the same event; 
while the differences between the two accounts (cf. 7 and 8, above) 
compel the conclusion that the Acts narrative is inaccurate as to the 
result of the conference; it has perhaps introduced here an event that 
bdongs somewhere else. From the argument of Gal. {cf. x above) 
it also follows that Acts ii*’-” is inaccurate. 

14. From 8 and 10 it follows that before the events of Gal. 2»'*» the 
apostles at Jerusalem might have looked with favour upon the con- 
version of Gentiles to Christianity without the full acceptance of the 
Jewish statutes, and might have interpreted such an experience as that 
narrated of Peter in Acts, chap. 10, symbolically, as indicating that 
Gentiles to whom God gave his Spirit could not be rejected by them; 
yet that it is wholly improbable, not to say impossible, that they 
should also have interpreted it as indicating the abolition of the Jew- 
ish law of foods for themselves. Cf. Acts ii*, and p. 105 above. 

g. Continuation and expansion of Paul’s address at Antioch, 
so stated as to be for the Galatians also an exposition of the 
gospel which he preached (2“*-“). 

Having in the preceding verses, narrated the incident of 
his controversy with Peter in Antioch, he passes in these to 
discuss the question on its merits, yet at first having still in 
mind the Antioch situation and mentaUy addressing Peter, if 
not quoting from what he said to him. When he leaves the 
Antioch situation behind, or whether he really does so at aU, 
it is impossible to say. The argument is at first an appeal to 
the course which both he and Peter had followed in seeking 
justification in Christ, whereby they confessed the worthless- 



ness of works of law. He then raises and answers the objec- 
tion to his position that since his premises had led him and 
Peter to abandon and disregard the statutes of the law, they 
had made Christ a minister of sin, denying the premise of this 
objection that violation of law is sin, and affirming, on the con- 
trary, that one becomes a transgressor by insisting upon obedi- 
ence to the statutes of the law. This paradoxical statement he 
in turn sustains by the affirmation that he — speaking now 
emphatically of his own experience — through law died to law, 
i. e., by his experience under law was forced to abandon it, in 
order to live to God. The legitimacy of his anti-legalistic 
course he still further defends by maintaining that in his death 
to law he became a sharer in the death of Christ, and that in 
his new life Christ lives in him, his own impulses and will being 
displaced by those of the Christ, and his life being sustained 
by faith upon the Son of God who loved him and gave himself 
for him. Finally he denies that in so doing he is making of no 
account the grace of God manifest in giving the law, point- 
ing out that the premise of this objection that God intended 
law as the means of justification makes the death of Christ 
needless, a thing which no believer in Christ would affirm or 

though Jews by nature and not sinners of Gentile origin^ 
knowing that a nan is not justified by works of law^ but Ofdy 
through faith in Christ Jesus^ even we believed in Christ Jesus^ 
that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of 
Icm^ bemuse by works of law shall no flesh be justifiedj^ ^'^But 
if through seeking to be justified in Christy we ourselves dso were 
found to be sinners, is Christ thmfore a minister of sinf By no 
means. ^^For if the things that I broke down, thse I build up 
again, I slum myself a trans^essm^^ ^^For I through law died to 
km Bud I fmgU live to God. have bmt crucifix with Chisi, 
and a ism long^ I that live, hut Christ that liveth in me, and the 
life Bkd I now Um in the flesh, I live in faith, faith which is in ike 
Sm of God, who Iwd me and gam Mmsdf for me, do mt 
make of m effect the p^ace of God; for if righteousness is though 
km, Christ died nmMessly^ 

11, I-I4, i5-i6 119 

15. 'Hyttet? ^wcret 'lovhalot, /cal ovk idvSav a/xaprcoXol^ “We 
though Jews by nature and not sinners of Gentile origin.” The 
clause is concessive in relation to kuI . . . imcrrevcraiJLeVj 
etc., below: though possessing by virtue of birth all the advan- 
tages of knowledge of law {cf, Rom. 3^* 2), and hence of oppor- 
tunity of obeying it and achieving righteousness through it (c/. 
Phil. 3^' ®), and not men born outside the law, and hence in the 
natural course of events possessing none of the advantages of it. 

On the use of cpCast, cf, Rom. 2*^ 15 |0vj)v (note the omission of 

the article) is qualitative in force. The phrase is one of origin, exactly 
antithetical in thought, though not perfectly so in form to <p6(jet TouBatot. 
dpLapT(i>Xo{ is evidently used not in its strict sense denoting persons 
guilty of sin, not perfectly righteous (see detached note on 'ApiapTfa 
p. 436), but, as often in IST. T., ^'persons (from the point of view of the 
speaker or from that which he for the moment adopts) pre-eminently 
sinful,’^ ** sinners above others,” ^‘habitual transgressors of law.” So 
of the publicans and other Jews, who at least from the Pharisaic point 
of view were guilty of specific violation of the law, Lk. 7^*’ ®, etc,, 

and of the Gentiles, like our word “heathen,” Mk. 14^ Lk. 24^; cf. 
X Mac. x,al Idijxav 4 xec S 9 vo<; (itxapTrcoXBv, <2vBpa(; xapotv6pi.ou<;, Tob. 
13 «: Bei5tv6(o T-Jiv laxi)v xal p(.eYaXci)cr6vr3v aBtoO |6vec dtpLapTwXCliv. 

16 . elSore? Sk Srt ov BiKatovrat av6pco7ro<i epycov v6fJL0v 

‘^yet knowing that a man is not justified by works of law.” 
In antithesis to the preceding concessive phrase this is causal, 
giving the reason for the hnarevaapi^Gv of the principal clause. 
To be justified, SiKaiova-Oat, is to be accounted by God accept- 
able to him, to be approved of God, accepted as being such as 
God desires man to be. In the word hfcatSo) we have one of 
those great words of the Pauline vocabulary, a right under- 
standing of which is of the highest importance for the interpre- 
tation of this letter and of the Pauline theology. But an ade- 
quate conception of its meaning can hardly be conveyed in a 
phrase; still less can the definition of it be justified in a sentence. 
For a fuller discussion intended to set the word in its true his- 
toric H^t and to present the evidence which sustains the defi- 
nition tihus reached, see the detached note on Altcam^ Aitcaio^ 
avpf)^ and p, 460, in particular under VI, N. T. usage, 



C. 2 (b), p. 473. dv0p<o'7ro<: is used in its wholly indefinite 
sense, as equivalent to rk. Cf. Rom. 3^® i Cor. 4^ ii^s. 

We meet here for the first time in this letter the phrase 
epyoov W/xou, which in this letter and in the epistle to the Romans 
plays so important a part in the apostle’s discussion of the 
basis of acceptance with God. Like hicaidco^ the phrase calls 
for an extended historical investigation, for which see detached 
note on Ncf/^o?, p. 443. vopiov is here evidently used qualita- 
tively, and in its legalistic sense, denoting divine law viewed as 
a purely legalistic system made up of statutes, on the basis of 
obedience or disobedience to which men are approved or con- 
demned as a matter of debt without grace. This is divine law 
as the legalist defined it. In the apostle’s thought it stands 
for a reality only in that it constitutes a single element of the 
divine law detached from all other elements and aspects of 
divine revelation; by such detachment it misrepresents the will 
of God and his real attitude towards men. By ip^a v6pLov Paul 
means deeds of obedience to formal statutes done in the legal- 
istic spirit, with the expectation of thereby meriting and secur- 
ing divine approval and award, such obedience, in other words, 
as the legalists rendered to the law of the 0 . T, as expanded 
and inter|)reted by them. Though in this sense had no 
existence as representing the basis of justification in the divine 
government, yet ^pya vSpLOv had a very real existence in the 
thought and practice of men who conceived of the divine law 
after this fashion. The preposition properly denotes source, 
in this case the source of justification. Since, however, justifi- 
cation is an act of God, while ^pya vdp^ov are deeds of men, the 
preposition in effect marks its object as a conditioning cause, 
whose inadequacy for the justification of men the apostle says 
he and Peter already knew. The translation of this phrase 
here and constantly in RV. by the works of the law,” retained 
also in ARV., and in general the ignoring of the qualitative 
use of pSfm and other like terms, is a serious defect of thae 
translations. CJ, Slaten, QualUaiim Nmm m ihe Pmdim 
Epistles, pp. S9 f- 

fiij nrloTem Xpurrw ’Iijo-oO, “but only through faith 


II, 1 6 

in Christ Jesus. is properly exceptive, not adversative 
(cf. on i^®), but it may introduce an exception to the preceding 
statement taken as a whole or to the principal part of it — in 
this case to ov Si/caiovrai avdpcoTro^ e| epjcov vopov or to ov 
BtmcovTat dvdpcoTTOs alone. The latter alternative is clearly 
to be chosen here, since the former would yield the thought 
that a man can be justified by works of law if this be accom- 
panied by faith, a thought never expressed by the apostle and 
wholly at variance with his doctrine as unambiguously expressed 
in several passages. See, e. g., the latter part of this verse and 
^ 10 . 14 ^ where faith and works of law are set in sharp antithesis 
with one another. But since the word except” in English is 
always understood to introduce an exception to the whole of 
what precedes, it is necessary to resort to the paraphrastic 
translation '^but only.” 

In TriarrtSf as in Bc/cai 6 (o and we have a word of central 
importance in the vocabulary of Paul. It signifies an accept- 
ance of that which accredits itself as true, and a corresponding 
trust in a person which dominates the life and conduct. Its 
personal object is God, or especially Christ as the revelation 
of God. For fuller discussion, see detached note on Il/crw and 
JlLarevG), p. 475, esp. V B. II 2 (e), p. 482. The following 
clause by its relation to the present clause evidently defines 
both the specific nature of the faith here referred to and the 
relation of Christ Jesus to it. X.pco’rov ^Irjaov is therefore to 
be taken as an objective genitive, expressing substantially the 
same relation to 'rrcam which is expressed after the verb by 
eh X-picTTbp ’^I'rja-Qvv, 

On the view of Haussleiter, Der Glaube Jesu Chfistl u. der ckristUche 
GktuhCf Leipzig, 1891, that the geaitive in such cases is subjective, the 
phrase denoting the faith which Christ exercised, see the brief note in 
S. and H. on Rom. 3®*. The evidence that like and 
may take an objective genitive is too clear to be questioned (cf, Mk. 
11^ Acts Col 2» 2 Thes. 2^»). This once established, the context in 
the presmt case (see esp. the phrase elc Xptcrxbv 'InaoOv iTctareOffoptv) is 
dedkve for its acceptance here; and the meaning here in turn practi- 
cally decMw the meaning of the phrase throughout this epistle. See 



The preposition properly denoting channel and then means, here 
marks its object as the means through which one secures justification, 
and so, in effect, the conditioning cause, that in man by virtue of which 
he is justified by God. To draw any sharp distinction between Stci 
as here used and lx in l§ vlpiou above or in lx TcCaTsw*; below is 

unjustifiable refinement, not legitimate exegesis. 

After Sick xicyxeioq ^sCDFGKLP ah pier. It. Vg. al. read Tn^ou Xpiaiou. 
XptaTou Tnaou, on the other hand, is the reading of AB 33, some mss. 
of Vg. Victorin. Aug. An examination of all the occurrences of the 
title XptaT6<;, TYjaouc; Xptcrt6<;, or Xpiarb^; in this epistle indi- 

cates a preference of the scribes for the form Xp. or Xp. Ttqct. after Iv, but 
elsewhere for Ttjg. Xp. rather than Xp. Ttqo‘.; thus in 3** ^2 Tiga. 
Xp- occurs (not after Iv) without variant or with unimportant variation. 
In 1“ 2<* 3^«' 5® Iv Xpiaxij) or Iv Xpiaxip Tn<ioO occurs without im- 

portant variation. Cf. also 6“, where Iv Xpiatip 'lY}aoO is doubtless an 
addition to the original text, but attested by a large number of authori- 
ties without variation in the form of the name. In 3®*, where the cor- 
rect text is undoubtedly Tioffou Xpicnrou, L reads Iv Xpiatci) Tt^ooO. On 
the other hand, there are exceptions: in the present passage, after 
Sid x£axew<; there is, as shown above, good authority for both XpiaxoG 
TiQaou and TtqctoG Xpiatou; in after dq most authorities read Tncrouv 
Xpiaxlv, but B 322, 429, Syr, (psh. hard.) Boh. Aeth., etc., read Xptotbv 
Tnaouv, which Tdf. adopts and WIL prefer; in 5®® toO ^piaxou Tifjaou is 
doubtless the original reading, but many authorities omit Ttqctou; 
in 3^® authorities are divided between Iv Xptax^ Tiocroo and Iv TiQaoO 
Xpwxcp. Only in 4*® has Xp- Itj- not after Iv been allowed to stand 
without variation; in 6*® only B 31 are cited for XpicrTou TtjaoO, all 
others reading xoG XpieToO. The evidence of the other Pauline epistles 
points in the same direction. Iv Xpwxip and Iv Xpiat^ "ItjaoG occur 
often, with frequent variations in the mss. between the two forms, but 
in no Greek ms. of these epistles has the form Iv TtjaoO Xpiorii) Ixtu 
noted. In 2 llies. P occurs the form Iv . . . xup{(|> TtjeoG Xpwtip, Some 
authorities omit xupf<|> and transfuse to Xpmtp TtqtoG. In Phil to 
Iv Xptortci) TtjeoO some Western authorities luld xup£<i^ after Iv anci then 
transpose to TtjaoO Xpt<rc4>. See also Rom. 14*® Phil 3*» where numer- 
ous authoiiries convert Iv xupfip TirjaoO, into iv Xptcrrij^ TtjeroO. In other 
words, while this evidence shows that it was the apostle^i usual habit 
to write XpiOT$ or Xpior^ TrjeoO after iv and to prefer the form Tkf- 
Xp* rather than Xp* *lyp, in other positions, yet it also shows (a) that 
he allowed Mmscif a certain Hberty in the matter, and (b) that the 
tendency of the wibas wm (as was natural) to conform his text to his 
usud habit. The evidence therefore toads to wnfirm the general esti- 
mate of the testinmny of AB imd points to the conclusion that in such 
cases as the inroent pa»age ft fg the a|^t!« 

n, i6 123 

who has departed from his usual habit; most of the scribes have coe- 
formed the text to it. 

KoX 7 jixel<^ eh ILpicrrov ^Iriaovv emaTevaaiiev ^ Lva BL/caicoO&fxev 
ifc TTLarem X.pcarov teal ovk e^ epyoop vopjov^ ^^even we be- 
lieved in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in 
Christ and not by works of law.” On the significance of the 
individual words, the qualitative force of the anarthrous nouns 
and the force of the genitive after iricrrecp^^ see comment on 
the former part of the verse, /cat, throwing its emphasis on 
^ixehy itself emphatic by the very fact of being expressed, es- 
pecially after having already been expressed at the beginning 
of the sentence, serves to recall 'r^peh (j^veret 'lovSaioi of v.'^K 
eTTLCTTevaapev eh expresses in its fullest and most definite form 
the act of Christian faith, the committal of one’s self to Christ 
on the basis of the acceptance of the message concerning him. 
See the detached note on and nco“reva/,.pp. 475-485, 

esp. V A. 2, p. 480. 

The emphasis of tva . . . v6yLou, which expresses the purpose of 
iTciff'ce^aocp.ev, is evidently upon the verb, not upon its limitations; the 
latter etc., are in effect a re-assertion of the condition on 

which alone justification is possible. For a somewhat similar instance 
of emphasis upon one element of a clause, see Rom. 6^^ lx wfcrceoig 
differs from Bed xfa'ceoc; in the former clause rather in the form than 
in the substance of the thought expressed, Stii denoting the means by 
which, lx that in consequence of which, one is justified. Cf. Th. lx 
II 6, and for examples indicating the practical equivalence of the two 
expressions, see (for 3 t( 5 c) chap. 3®® Rom. 3®®* ®» Eph, 2* 3*®* n; (for lx) 
chap. 37. ® Rom. x*® 3®® 4^® q*®* and especially Rom. 3®®, where, 

as here, the two prepositions occur in adjacent clauses. 

On the reasons for preferring the reading, efc Xpccrrbv Ti^aouv, see 
on XptOTou TTfjaou above. 

^pymp v 6 pov ov Bifcam 6 f]cr€Tat waara erdp^,^^ because 
by works of law shall no flesh be justified.” This clause, added 
at the end of a verse which has already twice expressed in effect 
the same thought, is evidently intended to confirm what has 
been said by the authority of scripture. The words ov htcatr 
m 6 i^<rerm iraaa erdp^ are from Ps. 143®, following substantially 



the Lxx (which itself renders the Hebrew exactly) except that 
<Tov, “before thee,” is omitted and Tracra ffdp^ substi- 
tuted for TTa? ^S)v of the Lxx. The word here used by 
metonymy for a materially conditioned being, is practically 
equivalent to av 6 pamo<:. See detached note on Uvevpa and 
'^dp^, p. 486, esp. p. 492. The words ef ^pycov v 6 p.ov, which 
are essential to the apostle’s purpose, are not in the psalm. 
There is, however, a basis for them in the preceding line, “ Enter 
not into judgment with thy servant,” which gives to the words 
that Paul has quoted the sense, “no man can be justified if 
judged on a basis of merit, all grace and mercy on God’s part 
being excluded.” The words added are therefore a correct 
interpretative gloss. Indeed, the teaching of the apostle on 
this point is a re-exposition in clearer form of a doctrine already 
taught by the Hebrew prophets. 

17 . d Sk ^TjTovvTei hiKatmO^vai ev Xpicrr^ “But if through 
seeking to be justified in Christ.” The most frequent use 
of this oft-recurring Pauline phrase iv X/owtt^ is that by 
which, representing Christ as the sphere within which the 
Christian lives, it expresses the intimate fellowship of the be- 
liever with Christ. See Th. iv, I 6 b. Cf. Frame on i Thes. i‘ 
and literature there referred to, esp. Deissmann, Die neuksta- 
mentliche Formel '‘In Christo Jesu.'' But this can be adopted 
here only by assuming that by an ellipsis of some such words as 
hid TO dvai tlie phrase iv Xpurrtp really stands for “ by virtue of 
being in Christ.” For this reason and because h with hucatdco 
usually has its causal and basal sense (see Th. ip I 6 c) it is 
best to give it the latter force here. Cf. for this use of 
3U; ip p6fif ovSek hi/catovTM. Rom. 3=**, hid AttoXvt/ko- 
erem Tfj<i iu XptoT^ ’Ij/ctov. Rom. $*, BueamSiprei pup ip 
aXpuri avrov. Acts 13 ®*: diro wdprcop S>p ovk ^BuPilfffjTe ip 
vdppep Bueaimd^pcu ip rovr^ ir&i 6 Trumimp Byecu- 

ovTcu. Thus interpreted the expression ip Xpiar^ is in a sense 
the complement of Bid TridreoK or ix Triarem of the preceding 
V., the fonner expressing that on which justification rests, that 
which renders it possible, tJie latter the subjective conditioning 


II, i6~i7 

€vpe07}ix€v fcal avrol aixapToaXol^ ourselves also were 
found to be sinners.” The emphatic pronoun avroi^ indicating 
that the apostle has definite persons or a definite class in mind, 
is most naturally understood to refer to Paul and Peter, and 
indicates that Paul is still maintaining the point of view of his 
address to Peter. The addition of fcai in connection with avroC 
and aiJLapT(o\oC carries the thought back to the expression ov/c 
ef e6v5>v afiapraikoi in v.^^ and indicates that apiaproaXol is to 
be taken here in the sense suggested by that verse, '^men out- 
side of the law,” violators of the law,” having reference to 
the disregard of the statutes of the law, especially those con- 
cerning clean and unclean meats, which statutes Paul, and for 
a time Peter also, had violated, and which Paul maintained 
ought not under the circumstances existing at Antioch to be 
kept. That they had become sinners by seeking to be justified 
in Christ, Paul would admit in the sense that they had become 
violators of law, but deny what the judaisers would affirm, 
that this was equivalent to saying that they had become actual 
sinners, wrongdoers, violators of God’s will. The supposed 
case, ^7]rovvre9 . . . apLaprcokoC^ Paul probably takes from the 
mouth of an actual or supposed objector, and accepts it as a 
correct statement of the situation in a sense of the words which 
he recognises as current. For confirmation of this interpreta- 
tion, see on p*r] ^ivoLTO below. 

The passive force of eDplOirjtiev “were discovered [by someone] can 
not be pressed. Not only is it true in general that many passives have 
in later Greek a middle or intransitive force (Butt, p. 52), so that 
« 5 pl 0 niJt.®v might easily mean, ^‘we foxmd ourselves,” but it is clear 
from N. T. examples that eSplOTjv in particular had the sense prove 
to be,” ^Hurn out to be,” almost *To become,” without special thought 
of the discovery of the fact. See i Cor, 4.* 2 Cor, 5® Acts 5®®, etc. Yet 
it is also possible that the apostle has in mind, and is in a measure 
quoting here the language of his opponents, who, referring to his viola- 
lion of the statutes of the law, would put their charge in the form: “You 
who profess to be seeking to be justified in Christ are found dinners.” 
C/. Rom. 7^® 1 Cor. 15*® 2 Cor. ii” i Pet. t\ 

&pa Xpiark apuiprlm Bcdfcovo<!; Christ therefore a min- 
ister of sin ? ” The sentence is to be taken as a question rather 



than an assertion because of the following m which in 

Paul regularly follows a rhetorical question.* dfiapria^ Std/covo<; 
is not afxaprCa^ Soi)Xo 9 , ‘"one who is in bondage to sin” (c/. 
Jn. 8®^), but ^‘one who ministers to sin,” one who furthers the 
interests of sin, promotes, encourages it. Cf. Rom. i5« 2 Cor, 
3® ii’®. Whatever the meaning of dfiaprcoXoi above (on this, 
as will appear below, interpreters disagree), the noun dfiapria 
is doubtless to be taken here in its proper sense, ^‘conduct 
which is not in accordance 'with true righteousness.” The 
noun aiiaprla is apparently never used in the formal sense, 
violation of law, in N. T., and though in view of the use of 
dfxapTa)\c 5 ^ the possibility of it could not be denied, yet the 
absence of any example of it is against it and the nature of the 
argument here even more decisively so. The conclusion which 
Paul by ry^poLTO emphatically rejects manifestly pertains 
not to sin in any formal or Pharisaic sense, but to veritable 
guilty wrong-doing. The whole speciousness of the objection 
which Paul is answering turns on the seeming identity, the real 
diversity, of the conceptions of sin implied in dparmXol and 
dimprlm respectively. See detached note on ^Apapria^ p. 436. 

pry ySoiTo' no means,” lit. * 4 et it not be.” This phrase 
used in N. T. almost exclusively by Paul (elsewlicre in Lk. 
20^® only) is uniformly employed by him to repel as abhorrent 
to him a suggested thought. When standing alone (it is other- 
wise only in 6*^) it invariably follows a rhetorical question and 
rejects the suggested thought as one which the previous prem- 
ises, themselves accepted as true, do not justify; and usually 
(i Cor. 6*® and possibly Rom. rx* are the only exceptions), 
a conclusion which may be speciously but falstdy deduced 
from his own previous statements. See chap. 3^^ Rom. 3^, ® 6** 
These facts concerning PauFs usage of this phrase 

• WE«t!ier we are to or there seemi to be no decWve reason to dbtormlne; 

the ientonw Wng s- qnettion and that nuestton being whether a certain inftmwe tollowi 
from t ritwtion. Ipa, which Is an intitrogatlve imrticki. leaves the llktivc element 

niiap»«i, whde i&fm, m llktlve particle, leaven tte intorrop-Uon naexprwied. But 
being to Ftnl, whereas thwn fe no dw InsfeMice of ip» to hli wriiliip, the 

fttmption to perhapt slightly to f&vonr dE the former. Tht difference of mewing h not gmt. 
Of the h^tatton m bewilderment which kxicoipmphm sty It sufgmted by Ipa, th«re to no 
trace h«re. 

n, 17 


are important. They not only show that the preceding words 
must, as stated above, be taken as a question, but make it 
practically certain that what fir) yevotro denies is not the sup- 
position et . . . afiaprcokoi and with it the conclusion based 
upon it, but the validity of the deduction of the conclusion 
from the premises. The apostle accepts the premises; denies 
that the conclusion follows. In other words, he admits that they 
became sinners, violators of law, by seeking to be justified in 
Christ, but denies that from this fact one can legitimately draw 
the conclusion which his opponents allege to follow and by 
which they seek to discredit his position, viz., that Christ is 
therefore a minister of sin. 

Of this sentence as a whole there have been very many interpreta- 
tions. It will be sufScient here to direct attention to a few. The dif- 
ferences between them may be most easily made clear by setting down 
the three propositions which are involved in the verse: (i) We are seek- 
ing to be justified in Christ. (2) We were found sinners. (3) Christ 
is a minister of sin. Proposition (i) Paul undoubtedly accepts; prop- 
osition (3) he undoubtedly denies. All interpretations agree that “ sin” 
is used in proposition (3) in its strict and proper Pauline sense, verita- 
ble wrong-doing. The differences of interpretation turn mainly upon 
two questions: What’ is the sense of the word “ sinners,” dp.apT(«>Xof, in 
prop. (2) ? Is (2) admitted or denied? 

According to the view of many commentators, both ancient and 
modern,* dbpwcpTwXoC is used in a sense corresponding to that of dp.apT:fa<; 
in the next clause, sinners ” in the proper sense of the word, and 
yhoixQ denies both (2) and (3); it is tacitly assumed that they stand or 
fall together, as must indeed be the case if dp-apTcoXof and dpiapTfoci; corre- 
spond in meaning. This interpretation takes on two slightly different 
forms, according as si . . . Sidxovo? is supposed to be an aflSirmation 
of an objector quoted by Paul, or a question put by Paul himself. In 
the former case the objector, a legalist Jewish Christian, tacitly assum- 
ing that violation of law is sin, reasons that by their abandonment of 
law in their effort to obtain justification in Christ the Jewish Christians 
have themselves become sinners and thus have made Christ a minis- 
ter of sin, from the objector^s point of view a reducHo ad aisurdum 
which discredits the whole Pauline position. To this Paul replies deny- 

•Sfcf. dtM m kMeig sabstJuatkUy this view, but with various modifications: Chrys. 
Thdrt, Oecuro. Thphyl. Bram. Luth. Cast. Calv. Cal. Est, Wolf. Wetst. Semi Koppe, Bmn, 
m. Win. Ust. Matth. Schott, B-O. de W. H%. Bw. Mey. Mdd. Wetzel, Wa Ms 
|i aho tlse i4ew JKl 



ing that (by violating law) they have been found sinners, and denying 
therefore that there is any ground for afl&rming that they have made 
Christ a minister of sin. If on the other hand the sentence is a question, 
Paul himself asks whether in seeking to be justified in Christ (without 
law) they have become veritable sinners, and thus made Christ a 
minister of sin, and as before by yivotTo denies that they have (by 
abandoning law) become sinners, and hence that there is any ground 
for saying that they have made Christ a minister of sin. In either 
case Paul uses (itxapTcoXof in the sense of real sinners, admits that 
premise and conclusion go together, and denying (on the unstated 
ground that abandonment of law is not sin) that they are found sin- 
ners, with it denies the conclusion. It is an objection to this interpre- 
tation in all of its forms that it disregards both the obvious force of 
Y^votTo in relation to the preceding sentence and the apostle’s 
regular usage of it. As Zahn well points out, the question which 
Y^votTo answers (that it is a question, see above on txi) yivotxo) is by 
its very terms not an inquiry whether the premises are true, but whether 
the alleged conclusion follows from the premise. The placing of 
eOp^OiQixev in the conditional clause along with the unquestionably 
admitted t^TQTOuvTeq, etc., implies that it is only Xpt<rc6«; dpL«pt{a<; 
Btdxovog that is called in question. If iOplOiQixev . . . a^xap-rcoXoC 
were also disputed the sentence ought to have been as follows: Seek- 
ing to be justified in Christ, were we ourselves also found to be sinners, 
and is Christ accordingly a minister of sin?” This conclusion as to the 
meaning of the sentence is still further confirmed by the fact that by 
p.*?! ^ stated above, Paul regularly negatives a false conclu- 

sion from premises which he accepts. 

Of the interpretations which, giving the necessary weight to the 
usage of find in it a denial not of prop. (2) and a consequent 

denial of (3), but of the legitimacy of the deduction of the tx)ncluMon 
(prop. 3) from the premise (2) the correctness of which is thereby im- 
plied, the following types may be moitioned: 

ei ol., understand (ipujepwXof as meaning sinners in the strict 
sense, and make e5pl0TQp.8v , , , %.apteiXo{ refer to the sins which 
even the justified is fouxrd to commit. This view maniftttly involves 
an idea remote from the context, and is generally rtp^rded as incor- 
r«:t by modem interpreters. 

Sev^al mc^em inteipreters take diJMxpTOXeC in die mse sugg«ted 
by iJi V. sinners in that like the Gentilm Aey are out- 

jride of law, find in t5pl0'?||juv , . . &papwXo{, a consequence which 
Paul admits Mows kgimUy from the attempt to be Juttified in Christ, 
and m Xpwrk #«ptfot<; 3dtxove«s an Inference, the legitimacy of 
wMdb Paul in jhano. Thus it may be supposed that Paul 
has in mind an objator who allege that, inasmuch as the afmtlc’s 
own rewming is to the ^ect ttiat to make faith hi Christ the biwfa of 

Ily 17 129 

justification involves for the Jew putting himself on the plane of the 
Gentile, therefore he makes Christ the minister of sin; to which Paul, 
in reply, admits that this is his reasoning so far as the relation of 
the believer to law is concerned, but denies that the conclusion that 
Christ is the minister of sin legitimately follows. So clearly Ltft., who 
states his view thus: Seeing that in order to be justified in Christ it 
was necessary to abandon our old ground of legal righteousness and to 
become sinners (i. to put ourselves in the position of heathen), may 
it not be argued that Christ is thus made a minister of sin? So also 
substantially Zahn, who definitely maintains that the being foimd sin- 
ners took place in the very fact of conversion, and that t^TQTouvxe? . . . 
XptaT 4 > is practically equivalent to xtaT66ovxe<;; and Sief., who para- 
phrases thus: “In that we Christians, however, on our part sought to 
be justified not by works of the law but in Christ only, it is proved 
that we, just like the heathen, are sinners; this, in fact, follows from 
what was just said (v. 1 ®). This being the case is not Christ, then, 
with whom confessed sinners can, repudiating the righteousness based 
on works of law, seek justification, a promoter of sin?” In favour of 
this general interpretation it is to be said that it recognises the sig- 
nificance of Y^votTo and of the structure of the sentence, takes 
dlJLapTwXol in a sense suggested by >tal a5xo(, explains the introduction 
of TcapapfixTQ? below, which is brought in when Paul leaves behind the 
ambiguity of dkpLocpxoXof, and does not make the argument turn on 
remote and unsuggested premises. It may be doubted, however, 
whether it does not err in that it goes too far afield for its explanation 
of the word d(xapxG>Xo{, detaches the argument too much from the 
situation at Antioch as depicted in vv. and finds the occasion for 
the apostle^s question in a supposed logical inference from the doctrine 
of justification in itself rather than in the actual and recent conduct 
of Peter and Paul. Whether these words were actually uttered in 
substance at Antioch or not, the Antioch incident furnishes their 
background. It is probable, therefore, that the question there at issue 
is still in mind, and that in g5p^6TfipL€v xal oc6xol <3tp.apx(i)XoC he refers 
to himself and Peter, or posdbly to the Jewish Christians who had 
associated themselves with his movement, and desadbes them as be- 
coming, or as being discovered to be, violators of the Jewish law. The 
sentence thus takes on a definite and concrete meaning appropriate 
to the context. 

But this interpretation again a^umes two forms, according as one 
supposes Paul to be replying to an objection, or himself presenting to 
Peter’s mind an inference from his recent conduct in ceasing to 
eat with the Gentile Christians. In the former case the saataace 
m»ns: “If, then, our seeking to be justified in Christ issued in our 
b«:oming like the Gentiles, violators of law as was the case at Antioch, 
Mid m that smm sinnera, does it follow, as my critics allege, that 



Christ becomes a minister of sin?” In the latter case it means: You 
will admit, Peter, that it was while seeking to be justified in Christ 
that we were led to become violators of law at Antioch; are you will- 
ing, then, to admit that Christ is a minister of sin, as would follow 
from what was implied in your conduct in refusing to eat with the 
Gentiles, viz.: that not to obey the statutes of the law is sin?” Either 
of these interpretations is possible. They are alike in that they con- 
nect the thought with the Antioch event and that, recognising the usage 
of yhoiro^ they make the sentence a question and yivoizo a 
denial of the conclusion, not of the expressed premise, and base the 
denial on the rejection of the suppressed premise that violation of the 
statutes of law is (real) sin. But it is in favour of the form which finds 
in them an answer to an objection that e6p^0TQp.ev is more suggestive 
of the attitude of a critic than of an original statement of Paul (see 
above on eOpeS^, and especially that yhoi'zo is more naturally 
understood as repudiating the conclusion and false reasoning of an 
objector, than as a comment of the apostle on his own argument 
addressed to Peter. To combine the two interpretations, as Bous. 
apparently attempts to do, is impossible, because in the one case it is 
the critic of Paul’s position who is supposed to allege that Paul’s view 
makes Christ a minister of sin, and in the other case it is Paul who 
points out to Peter that his recent conduct issues in this impossible 

18 , el S Karikucra ravra wdXtp oIkqSo/x&^ Trapa^drrjp 
i/jLaurbp avpiardm^ “for if the things that I broke down, these 
I build up again, I show myself a transgressor,^^ By this state- 
ment the apostle sustains his M ydpo^ro, in which he denied the 
validity of the argument that by becoming a violator of law 
he had made Christ a minister of sin, the suppressed premise of 
which was that violation of law was sin. By S KariXvaa is 
obviously meant the statutes of the law which Paul had by his 
conduct declared to be invalid. The reasoning of this sentence 
is of the type e coniram. So far from its being the case that I 
commit sin by violating statutes of the law, it is, on the con- 
trary, the fact that if I build up again those commands of the 
law wMdi I broke down, I show myself therein a transgressor. 
This was prwrisely what Peter had done by Ms vacillating con- 
duct; hut Paul instead of saying either “thou'^^ or “we,” tact- 
fully applies the statement to himself. That he uses the form 
of conditional sentence apressive of simple supposition, not 


II, 17-18 

that of condition contrary to fact, is probably due to his really 
having in mind Peter’s conduct in building up the wall he had 
before broken down. The statement that not by disobeying 
but by obeying the statutes of the law he becomes a transgres- 
sor is, of course, obviously paradoxical and itself requires proof; 
this is furnished in v. 

On >caTaXi5(i) and in their literal sense, cf. Mk. 15”, h 

xaTaX6a>v tBv vabv v.a\ oJxoSotAwv. But as applied to a law or the like, 
xaTaX(3(i> means “to deprive of force,” “to abrogate” (cf. Mt. 5^’^: 
vo{x{aiQxe Bxt ‘^XSov xaxaXuciat xbv v6jxov ^ xo6<; 7cpoqpT/ixa<;), and oixoBopi.w 
as the antithesis of xaTa>w6a) in this sense means to “give force to,” 
“to render or declare valid.” 

The word icapcjtPciTTQ? is doubtless chosen instead of ( 5 :pi.apT(dX 6 g in 
order to get rid of the ambiguity of this latter term, which lay at the 
basis of the opponent’s fallacious reasoning. The is a vio- 

lator of the law, not of the statutes, but of its real intent. To have 
added xoG vBpiou would have been correct, but confusing as introducing 
a sense of v6p.o<; quite contrary to that in which it occurs throughout 
the context. The apostle might naturally have precisely reversed this 
usage, employing icapagdcinfj? for the technical violator of the statute, 
and dpujcpToXBq for the real sinner, the man who was not acting accord- 
ing to God’s will, and had he been quite free in the matter it is not im- 
probable that he would have done so. But the usage of his opponents, 
who employed <ipi.apTw>w6<; rather than icapapdeTTQi; for the Gentiles and 
those who like them did not observe the requirements of the law, com- 
pelled him to use this as the ambiguous term, and to resort to icapa- 
when he wished a strictly moral and unambiguous term. It is 
noticeable, however, that in the only other passage in which he uses 
the latter word (Rom. »’), it has substantially the same sense as 
here, designating not one who disregards the letter of the law, but one 
who is disobedient to its essential ethical spirit, and the passage gains 
in point and force by appl3dng this forceful term to one who, obe- 
dient to the statutes, misses the real meaning of the law. 

The verb auvieTAvo), late form of cruvfanfjut, liL “to set together,” 
is in N. T. employed in its active tenses with the meanings “to prove,” 
and “to commend,” in the former case usually to prove by oner's 
action, to exhibit in one’s conduct. Thus in Rom. 5®: cuvCaTigcrtv 
lauTOU dyikxrpf zlq 6 5tt Ixi dptapm^wv Svtwv 

Xpc 0 tB«; 5xlp -fujiSy dwiOaviv. See also 2 Cor. There is there- 

fore nothing in the force of the verb that requires the interpretation, 
“I prove that I was (in that former breaking down) a transgressor,” or 
that Qpp09« the interpretation, “I show myself therein (i in the 



present building up) a transgressor.” There are indications that the 
verb sometimes meant “ to esUblish” (see Num. 27® 2 Mac. 14“ 3 Mac, 
ju though in no case with two accusatives); but this usage does 
not occur in N. T., and though appropriate to the present passage is 
not demanded by it. 

On the paradox involved in the statement of this verse, see Rom. 3»>, 
where the apostle maintains, and in chap. 4 endeavours to prove, that 
the principle of faith, rejecting law, is not hostile to law but conso- 
nant with it; Rom. 8‘-*, where he declares in effect that the law is done 
away that the requirements of the law may be fulfilled; and Gal. 
chap, s, where having in v.‘ insisted upon freedom from the law, he 
nevertheless in v.“ distinctly implies the necessity of fulfilling the 

19 . iym yap Sid, v6fJU>vv6tJL(i) aTrSavov, “for I through law 
died to law.” The use of the first person, which in the preced- 
ing verse was unemphatic because Paul was speaking of what 
would be equally true of any Christian, e. g., of Peter, and 
applied to himself only hypothetically, becomes now emphatic. 
Note the expressed iya>, which together with the use of direct 
assertion indicates that the apostle is now speaking of his own 
personal experience. In the usage of Paul, “to die to” a thing 
is to cease to have any relation to it, so that it has no further 
claim upon or control over one. See Rom. 6*- **’• “ 7®. That 
to which Paul here refers in vdpov and wfw is evidently law in 
some sense in which it has played a part in the preceding dis- 
cussion, and most obviously divine law as a legalistic system, 
a body of statutes legalistically interpreted (see detached note 
on Ncf/«)9, pp. 443-460, esp. V 2 (c), p. 457). Paul would cer- 
tainly not say that he had died to law conceived of as consist- 
ing in the ethical principle of love (V 2 (d)), nor to law conceived 
of in the broad inclusive sense of the word (V 2 (b)). Law as a 
concrete historic fact without reference to fhe distinction be- 
tween the legalistic and ethical interpretation would be a suit- 
able meaning of Sid vdfiov, but could apply to only if we 
suppose tiiat Paul thinks of dying to it not in every respect, 
but as respects subjection to its statutes. On the other hand, 
tie legalistic meaning meets all the conditions of this verse 
and the context. It was on the basis of law in this sense that 


n, 18-19 

it was demanded that the Gentiles should be circumcised, and 
the Jewish Christians continue to obey the law of foods. It 
was this to which Paul refers in v. in the phrase ^pjcov voiiov. 
It was under this that he had lived in his Pharisaic days, and 
under which he had ceased to live (died to it), and to this he 
may well have referred as that through which he had been 
led to take this step. 

How the necessity of abandoning law was made evident to 
him by law, Paul does not here state. But there is no more 
probable explanation of his language here than that he has in 
mind the experience under the law to the result of which he 
refers in v.^® and which he describes at length in Rom., chap. 7. 
There he tells how the law — by 0 W/io^ he doubtless means the 
Mosaic law in its legalistic interpretation — had by his ex- 
perience under it taught him his own inability to meet its 
spiritual requirements and its own inability to make him 
righteous, and thus led him finally to abandon it and to seek 
salvation in Christ. Cf. also Phil. 3®-^. 

The sentence does indeed become somewhat more forcible, especially 
as more directly suggesting that he has divine authority for his repudia- 
tion of law, if v 6 tJLo<; be supposed to refer to divine law in a general sense 
(qualitatively considered, as is shown by the omission of the article), 
but with a constant sliifting of emphasis from one phase to another. 
We may then mentally supply v 6 p(.ou in this general sense after TcapagiSiTtjv 
and read: *‘But if I build up again tlie authority of those statutes 
of the law which I broke down, i. e., insist again upon the obligation 
to obey them, I become a transgressor of divine law (in its deepest 
meaning), for through my experience in seeking justification under it 
interpreted as a legalistic system, divine law itself taught me to aban- 
don it, as a body of statutes to be obeyed.” But the very complexity 
of the thought thus yielded is an objection to this interpretation, and 
the simpler, more direct and self-consistent one is probably, therefore, 
to be preferred, 

llie interpretation of Sid v 6 aou according to which it refers to the 
fact expressed by the words Sid toO toO m Rom. 7 ^: 

| 6 avaxciM)K)t« Std toO oiIhjuzxo*; tou which assumes 

a reference to the curse of the law which falling ujxin Christ is thereby 
adiausted, leaving the believer in Christ free, is far less probably cor- 
rect than the one proposed above. Std viSpiou is by no means 
obviously equivalent to 3td xoO a<*>p.axoc toO iu Rom. 



The words are different and the connection is different. There Paul 
is stating the objective grounds for freedom from the law; here, as the 
emphatic eytS implies, he is appealing to personal experience. Had 
tds thought been what this interpretation supposes, it would certainly 
have been more natural that he should write, hide (tou) v6pi.ou 
(t^) ^0avaT:(i)0'otJ.ev. Moreover, it is by no means clear that Paul 
conceived of the law as demanding and causing the death of Christ. 
In chap. 3 ^® he expresses the thought that the law pronounces a curse 
on the sinner, from which Christ by his death frees us. But it is essen- 
tial to the interpretation now under consideration that he should have 
thought of the law as bringing Christ to his death, and thereby ending 
its own dominion over men who are joined with Christ by faith‘*~-a 
thought which Paul has nowhere expressed. That the work of Christ 
should avail to avert the curse of the law from man, and to end the 
dominion of law, affords a basis for the statement that through Christ I 
died to law (cf. Rom. 8®) but not for through law I died to law.’' See 
Sief. for defence of this general view and criticism of other interpreta- 
tions, and Zahn for a criticism of it. 

TUpa that I might live to God.^^ C/. Rom. 6 ^^*' 

147. 8 2 Cor. This clause expressing the purpose of tlie 
apostle^s death to law is in effect also an argument in defence 
of it. It is implied that subjection to law in reality prevented 
the unreserved devotion of the life to God—tliis is one vice of 
legalism, that it comes between the soul and God, interposing 
law in place of God— and that it had to be abandoned if tixe life 
was really to be given to God. This is a most important ele- 
ment of Paulas anti-legaUsm, showing the basis of Ms opposi- 
tion to legalism in its failure religiously, as in Rom. he 
sets forth its etMcal failure. 

The dative is, as In Rom. primarily a dative of relation 
m antiMesis to the dative v 6 p.(i> in the preceding clause --but wMle it 
results from the nature of the verb that a dative of relation 

aiter it implies seimration, it results equally from the nature of the 
verb ti5w that the dative of rdation with it involvoi, or at l«st sug- 
gests, the force of a dative of advantage, as Is clearly the case in 

3 Cor, 5«. On the forte of without the article see p. 

Tht verb Is used by the ap<»tle Paul in four senses, wMch are, 
however, not dways Amply dktmguished; x, ‘‘To be alive, to be a 
Hwng bdng (a) of mm in contrast with dying or with the dead : i Th«. 
4«* *7 1 Con 7*® 15^ a Cor. 5^**“ Rom. 6”(?) 7** *» * xa* 147* ^ 

II, 19-20 135 

Phil. 1*1* cf. X Tim. 5« 2 Tim. 4}; (b) 0! God, in contrast with lifeless 
idols; I Thes. i» 2 Cor. 3® 6i» Rom. 9*® io» 14“; cf. 1 Tim. 31® 41^’; (c) meta- 
phorically, “to enjoy life,’' “to live happily” : i Thes. 3® Rom. 7® (?); 
“to have one’s living”: i Cor. 91®. 

2. In an ethical or qualitative sense: “to live in a certain way’* 

(usually ethically defined) with reference either to the source of vital 
power or to the direction of energy; chap. 21®* 1®* 5*® Rom. 6* 1* 

CoL 210 3^^; cf. 2 Tim. 31* Tit. 

3. In quotations from 0 . T. in a soteriological sense: “to escape 
death,” the penalty of sin, “to attain the divine approval,” “to be 
justified” ; chap. 3“ Rom. (in quotation from Hab. 2®); chap. 31* 
Rom. 10® (quotation from Lev. 18®). 

4. “To live after death,” “to possess eternal life”: i Thes. 5*® 2 Cor. 
i3< Rom. 610 14»- 

AU the instances in this chap, fall imder 2 above; those in chap. 3 
under 3. 

20 . Xpiar^ avvea-TavpwjMu.’ “I have been crucified with 
Christ.” The thought of participation with Christ in the 
experiences of his redemptive work is a favourite one with Paul, 
and the metaphors by which he expresses it are sometimes 
quite complicated. Cf. Rom. 6*-« 8” Phil. 3“ Col. 

A literal interpretation of these expressions, as if the believer 
were in literal fact crucified with Christ, buried with him, raised 
with him, etc., is, of course, impossible. The thought which 
the apostle’s type of mind and enthusiastic joy in the thought 
of fellowship with Christ led him to express in this form in- 
volves in itself three elements, which with varying degrees of 
emphasis are present in his several expressions of it, viz.: the 
participation of the beKever in the benefits of Christ’s experi- 
ence, a spiritual fellowship with him in respect to these experi- 
ences, and the passing of the believer through a similar or 
analogous experience. The first element is distinctly expressed 
in 2 Cor. 5“ and Rom. 4®*- and is probably in mind along with 
the third in Col 2^® 3'; cf. 2^*. The second is the predominant 
element in Phil. 3“, and the third in Rom. 8*’, while in Rom. 6‘ 
both the second and the third are probably in mind. In the 
present instance the verb awearai/paiMu indicates that the 
experience of Christ referred to is his death upon the cross, 
and the amtext implies that the experience of Paul here spokoi 



of is his death to law. Whether this death to law is related to 
the death of Christ objectively by virtue of a participation of 
the believer in the effects of Christ’s death (r/. Rom. 3^^* or 
subjectively by a spiritual fellowship of the believer with Christ 
in respect to his death {cf. Rom. 6^^^’ is not decisively indi- 
cated. On the one side, Paul has elsewhere expressed the idea 
that the believer is free from law by virtue of the work, specifi- 
cally the death, of Christ (chap. 3^3 Col. 2^^ Eph. 3^^' cf. Gal. 
2^ 5^ Rom. 10^), and in Col. 2^0 expressed this participation as a 
dying with Christ. On the other hand, while he has several 
times spoken of dying with Christ in the sense of entering into 
a spiritual fellowship with him in his death, he has nowhere 
clearly connected the freedom from the law with such fellow- 
ship.* Probably therefore he has here in mind rather the 
objective fact that the death of Christ brings to an end the 
reign of law (as in Rom. 10^, and esp. Col. 2^^) than that the 
individual believer is freed from law by his spiritual fellowship 
with Christ in death. Yet such is the many-sidedness of the 
apostle’s thought that neither element can be decisively ex- 
cluded. In either case the expression still further enforces the 
argximent in defence of his death to law. It was brought about 
through law; it was necessary in order that I might live to 
God; it is demanded by the death of Christ on the cross, wherein 
he made us free from law, bringing it to an end, or by my fel- 
lowship with him in that death. 

Lift*, interpreting ouvsoTa6(K*i(jiat by the use of the same word in 
Rom. 6« and by the use of the simple verb in Gal. 5*^ 6^* refers it to a 
death to sin, the annilulation of old sins. Such a dmnge in the appli- 
cation of a figure is by no means impossible in Paul (see the varied 
use of fjiAlpot m 1 Thes. But a sudden veering off from the central 
subject of his thought — ^the point which it was essential that he should 
carry— to an irrelevant matter is not characteristic of the a|KMtle, 
and k certainly not demanded here by the mere fact that he has in 
jmothfsr cont«t used rimilar phraseology in a sense required by that 
cmteitt, but not hanenonious with this. 

JS Bk oifc4Tt it^ ipLol Xpterr^ ^*and it is no 

loager I that live, but Christ that liveth in The order of 

• ^ wouM be m ew«pte of thfe maimer of ipmJklof if ip were tMkm m 

*‘l» fellowsMp i»tbwr ttei **00 ^ b«li of [the wo-rk d] 

II, 20 


the Greek is very expressive even when reproduced in Eng- 
lish: ^'and live no longer I, but liveth in me Christ/’ The 
first Se is not adversative but continuative, the sentence ex- 
pressing another aspect of the same fact set forth in the preced- 
ing sentence. The translation of AV. and RV., '^Yet I live, 
yet no longer I,” is wholly unwarranted; this meaning would 
have required aXKd before ov/c 4 rc, Cf. RV. mg. The second 
Se is sub-adversative (Ell.), equivalent to the German ^^son- 
dern,” introducing the positive correlative to a preceding nega- 
tive, statement. In this sentence Paul is clearly speaking of 
spiritual fellowship with Christ (cf, on v.^®). Yet this is not a 
departure from the central thought of the whole passage. He 
has already said in v.^® that the purpose of the d3dng to law 
was that he might devote himself directly to the service of God 
instead of to the keeping of commandments. He now adds that 
in so doing he gains a new power for the achievement of that 
purpose, thus further justif3ring his course. Saying that it is 
no longer that live, he implies that xmder law it was the 
that lived, and the emphatic iyco is the same as in Rom. 
yi5-2o^ There, indeed, it stands in w.^^* in direct antithesis 
to the a/Mtprla which is inherited from the past (cf. Rom. 
here over against the Christ who is the power for good in the 
life of one who, leaving law, turns to him in faith. But the 
iyd> is the same, the natural man having good impulses and 
willing the good which the law commands, but opposed by 
the inherited evil impulse and under law unable to do the good. 
On the significance of the expression iv ipoi, see Rom. 8®* 

I Cor. 2^® Col Eph. 3^®“^®. It is, of course, the heavenly 
Christ of whom he speaks, who in religious experience is not 
distinguishable from the Spirit of God (cf. chap, s^®- ®®). 

With this spiritual being Paul feels himself to be living in such 
intimate fellowship, by him his whole life is so controlled, that 
he conceives him to be resident in him, imparting to him im- 
pulse and power, transforming him morally and working through 
him for and upon other men. Cf 4^®. Substantially the same 
fact of fellowship with Christ by which he becomes the con- 
trolling factor of the life is expressed, with a difference of form 



of thought rather than of essential conception of the nature of 
the relation, by the phrase eV Xpicrr^^ which is more frequent 
in Paul than ei' ipot. Cf. 5^ and Frame on i Thes. 

and references there given to modern literature. 

S Se vvv iv aaptcCj ev TTLcrrei. '' and the life that I now 
live in the flesh, I live in faith.’' The sentence is coiitinuative 
and epexegetic of the preceding, explaining the life which, 
despite his preceding affirmation that he is no longer living, he 
obviously still lives, by declaring that it is not an independent 
life of his own, but a life of faith, of dependence on the Son of 
God. See below. 

The relative S is an accusative of content, which simply puts 
into substantive form the content of the verb (Delbriick, 
Vergleichende Syntax^ III i, § 179; Rob. p. 478). vvv mani- 
festly refers to the time subsequent to the change expressed in 
v 6 pL(p aireOavov and the corresponding later phrases, h crapKl 
is therefore not an ethical characterisation of the life (as in 
Rom. 8^* ®) but refers to the body as the outward sphere in 
which the life is lived, in contrast with the life itself and the 
spiritual force by which it was lived. By this contrast and 
the fact that c'dp^ often has an ethical sense, the phrase takes 
on perhaps a slightly concessive force: ^\the life that I now 
live though in the flesh is in reality a life of faith.” On the 
use of fxdp^ in general, see detached note on Ilv€vpui and 
p. 492. 

The words Iv stand in emphatic contrast with those which 
they immediately follow, a contrast heightened by the use of the same 
preposition Iv in a different sense, or rather with different implication. 
For, while in both cases Iv denotes the sphere in which the life is lived, 
in iv mgxi the sphere is physical and not determinative of flie nature 
of the life, in Iv idenret it is moral and is determinative of the char- 
acter of ffie life. without the article is, like oreepaf, qualitative 

in for«, wad though pro-perly a noun of perwnal aeflon, is here con- 
«ivai of mth«r m m atmosphere in which one lives and by which one’s 
life k clwractaris^. For other instimces of this use of die prepodtion 
with nouns pre^^edy denotmg activity or concMtbn, x Cor. 4 ^ a Qir. 

E^. 4» S*. 

Tp Tofi viov rw 0mB ** (faith) whidi is in the Son of Ctod.” 
Having in the expr^oa iv dwciibed faith qualitatively 


II, 20 

as the sphere of his new life, the apostle now hastens to identify 
that faith by the addition of the article rp and a genitive express- 
ing the object of the faith. For other instances of a qualitative 
noun made definite by a subjoined article and limiting phrase, 
see W. XX 4 (WM. p. 174); Rad. p. 93; Gild. Syn, p. 283; 
Rob. p. 777; BMT 424; and cf, chap, 3^1. On the objective 
genitive after see on Scd l^piarov v,^®. 

On the meaning of rov vlov tov 6eov, see detached note on 
The Titles and Predicates of Jesus, V, p. 404. What par- 
ticular phase of the meaning of this title as applied to Jesus is 
here in mind, or why it is chosen instead of X/Jtcrro'^ or ^pio-rd^ 
^l 7 ]a-ov 9 , which have been used in this passage thus far, there is 
nothing in the context clearly to indicate. No theory is more 
probable than that here, as in it is the Son of God as the 
revelation of God that he has in mind, and that this expression 
comes naturally to his lips in thinking of the love of Christ. 
See Rom. 8®' but notice also Rom. 5® 8®®» and observe in 
the context of these passages the alternation of titles of Jesus 
while speaking of his love or the love of God, without apparent 
reason for the change, 

*ro0 ulou ToO 6eo0; so fc^ACD^ «KLP, all the cursives, f Vg. Syr. 
(psh. hard.), Boh. Sah. Arm. Eth. Goth. Clem., and other fathers. 
Ln. adopted the reading too Oeou xal Xpeatou attested by BD* FG d g. 
Despite its attestation by B, this is probably a Western corruption. 
The apostle never speaks of God expressly as the object of a Christian's 

rov ht^air'f}(ravr6<i /x€ tcaX 'irapaSdvrofS eavrov mrkp ifiov* 
* Vho loved me and gave himself up for me.’' Cf, the note on 
rod Sdpro<: iavrhv trrr^p r&p dfiapTi&v chap. Here as 

there, and even more clearly because of the use of the verb 
rrapuhlhmp4^ (cf. Rom. 4®® i Cor. ii®® Eph. 5^^ esp. Eph. 5^) 
in pla<» of the simple S/Scp/a, the reference is to Christ’s volun- 
tary surrender of himself to death. The use of and ijMiv 
rather than ^pm and indicates the deep personal feeling 
with which the apostle writes. The whole ejqpression, while 
suggesting the ground of faith and the aspect of Christ’s work 
with wHdi faith has si)ecially to do, is rather a spontaneous 


and grateful utterance of the apostle^s feeling called forth by 
the mention of the Son of God as the object of his faith than a 
phrase introduced with argumentative intent. On the mean- 
ing of see on 5^^. 

21. Ov/c aderSy rrjv rod deov' do not make of 

no effect the grace of God.” This sentence, abruptly introduced 
without connective, is doubtless an answer to an objection 
which the apostle knows to have been urged or which he fore- 
sees may easily be urged against his doctrine. This objection, 
as is shown by the sentence and the reference to 

law in the next, is to the effect that he is making of no account 
the special grace of God to Israel in giving them the law 
{cf. Rom. 3 ^ 0 * Since is a favourite term of the apostle in 
reference to the gospel, it is not impossible that it was taken up 
by his critics and turned against him in some such statement 
as that by his doctrine of grace as against law he was really 
making of no account the grace of God to Israel. This criti- 
cism he answers by direct denial, which he sustains in the next 
sentence. It would be natural to expect him to turn the criti- 
cism upon his critics by intimating that it was they who rejected 
the grace of the gospel But to have suggested this thought 
he must, it would seem, have used the emphatic 

On dtOixiS, ”to set aside/* “to reject/’ c/. Mk. y* t Thes. 4* Gal. 3**; 

M. and M. Voc. s. v. On the meaning of xciptc, see on 

cl p^fjLov ZucaLQixvpriy &pa X/)t<JT 09 Bci}p€^p S^irSamp. 

*‘ioi if righteousness is through law, then Christ died need- 
lessly.^’ On the use of the word ^ucouqcfvpt}^ see detached note, 
p. 460, It is doubtless to be taken here, chiefly at least, in 
its forensic sense (VI B. 2, p. 469), this rather than the ethical 
sense having been the subject of discussion from v. on, and 
it being this also which the apostle a little more frequently 
associates with the dmth of Christ (chap. 3^* ” Rom. 
if. note on chap. i*). wipov is doubtle^ also to be taken, 
as throughout the {mMage, in its legalistic sense (see detached 
note on V 2 (c), p. 457, and cf. on v. above). S0p€dp 
means not without remit/’ a meaning wWdh it apparently 

II, 20“ 2 1 


never has, certainly not in N. T., nor ‘‘freely,” in the sense 
“gratuitously,” ‘‘without (giving or receiving) pay,” which, 
though a well-established meaning of the word (see Rom. 
3^4, and cf. also M. and M. Voc, s, v.), would be wholly in- 
appropriate here, but “without cause,” “needlessly,” as in 
Jn. 15^®. The protasis el . htcaLocrvvr} is in form a simple 
supposition, which is often used, as in chap, i® Rom. 5^®, when 
the context makes it clear that the condition is fulfilled, but also 
not infrequently, as here and in 3^®, where it is equally clear 
that in the opinion of the writer it is contrary to fact. See 
BAfr 248, 249. The argument of the sentence is from a 
Christian point of view a reductio ad absurdum, and is adduced 
as proof of the preceding statement. If, as you aflSrm but I 
deny, men must obey the statutes of the law in order to achieve 
righteousness, then there was no need that Christ should die. 
Law in the legalistic sense, and the conception of righteous- 
ness as obtainable through it, was well established in the world. 
If this conception was correct, if righteousness could really be 
attained in this way, there was no need of a new revelation of 
God's way of righteousness (see Rom. 3 ® 0 ; and the death 
of Christ, with its demonstration of divine righteousness 
(Rom. 3^® and God's love (Rom. 5^“^®) and its redemption of 
men from the curse of the law (see chap. 3^® and notes on it), 
was needless. That in the plan of God it came to pass (chap, 

4^ Rom. 8®®) is evidence that it was not needless, and this in turn 
proves that righteousness through law was not God's plan for 
the world, and refutes the charge that denial of the validity of 
law to secure righteousness involves a setting aside of the 
grace of God. 

Mey. and others understand %dptv to refer exclusively and directly 
to the grace of God manifest in the gospel and take oOx. dtOsTfii, etc., not 
as an imswer to an objection but as an indirect condemnation of the 
course of Peter, the meaning being, I do not set aside the grace of God 
manifest in the death of Christ, as is virtually done by those who 
iimist that righteousness is through law. The clause si . . . 8 txaioo-fivii 
is then deigned to prove, not, as above, that the rejection of righteous- 
ness by law does not involve a setting aside of the grace of God, but 
that insistence on righteousnw by law does involve it. For to affiro 



that righteousness is through law is to say that God^s grace manifest 
in his death was useless. Such an interpretation of the argument, 
though not perhaps impossible, is open to two objections: first, that 
the form of expression, “I do not set aside,’' etc., suggests a denial of 
something that is said or might be speciously said against Paul’s view, 
rather than a claim made by himself for his view or an objection to 
his opponent’s view; and, secondly, that it makes the ei ydtp sentence 
a proof of something only remotely implied in the preceding statement 
instead of taking it as directly related to what is expressed in the pre- 
ceding sentence, viz,, that Paul’s view does not involve a setting at 
nought of God’s grace. 



I, Appeal to the early Christian experimce of the Gala^ 
Hans (3^*®). 

Leaving the defence of his doctrine through the assertion of 
his own direct divine commission, the apostle now takes up 
that defence by refuting the objections to it brought by his op- 
ponents, the judaisers. begin that refutation by appeal- 

ing to the early Christian experience of the Galatians, which, 
as both they and he well knew, was not in the sphere of law, 
but of faith. 

Oh foolish GdMianSj who bmikhed you^ before wMse eyes Jesus 
Christ was placarded crucifix ? "^This ofdy wo%dd I k&rn from 
you^ Recm^ ye the S^it on ground of works of km or of a 
hearing of faUh t ^Are ye so foolish f Eawng begun mth Spirit 
are ye now ^sM»g with flesh t *Did ye suffer so many things 
in min f If it recMy is to be in min, W e th^efore that supplied 

in, I 


the Spirit richly to you and wrought miracles among you, did he 
do these things on ground of works of law or of a hearing of faith ? 

1 , ’fit avoTjTOL VaXdraL, rk vfMas e^dcTKavev, oh tear o^ 0 aX- 
/X0U9 ^lr)crov<; X/o^erro? TTpoeypdcpTj ecrravpcopLevo<i‘, foolish 
Galatians, who bewitched you, before whose eyes Jesus Christ 
was placarded crucified?’^ Returning to the situation in 
Galatia itself, which he had left behind in i®, but still having 
in mind what he had just said in 2^1 to the effect that the legal- 
istic teaching of the judaisers makes the death of Christ a fact 
without significance, a useless tragedy, the apostle breaks forth, 
somewhat as in i®, in an expression of surprise touched with 
indignation that the Galatians were turning away from his 
gospel of Christ crucified {cf, i Cor. 32). To this great 
fact, which Paul had set forth before the Galatians with the 
clearness of a public proclamation on a bulletin-board, and 
which it should, therefore, have been impossible for them ever 
to forget, the preaching of the judaisers tends to blind them as 
by malicious magic. The verb ^acKalvco (see below) is doubtless 
used tropically with the meaning ^^lead astray, and the ques- 
tion, which is, of course, rhetorical, refers to the same persons 
who in are spoken of as troubling them and seeking to per- 
vert the gospel of the Christ. On the people here designated 
Galatians, see Introd. pp. xxi-xliv. 

The addition of dXiQSefqt y.-?) ice(0ea6at after ipdcaxavev by CD°KLP 
al. pier., is a manifest corruption under the influence of 5^. 

*Av6Tf3to<;, a classical word from Sophocles and Herodotus down, is 
found in N. T., besides here and v. », in Lk. 24*® Rom. 1 Tim. 6® 
Tit. $K Properly a passive, ^‘unthinkable,’’ it has in N. T., as also 
ordinarily in classical writers and regularly in the Lxx, the active sense, 
“foolish,” “lacking in the power of perception.” i Tim. 6® is not a real 
exception, the word properly describing a person being applied by 
easy metonymy to his desires. The usage of the word, both classical 
and biblical, suggests failure to use one’s powers of perception rather 
than natural stupidity, and the context, especially v. clearly points 
to the fanner sense for the present passage. See Hdt. Xen. An, 
2. X*®; Mem, 1. 3®; Plat- Protag, Pkil 12D; Legg, HI 687I); 

Prov. i7» Sir. 43® 4 Mac. 5® 8*® bk. 24®® Rom. 1®® i Tim. 6® Tit. 3®. 

The verb signifying in classical authors, to slander (Bern. 



94^^ 29122), “to envy” (Dem. 464*^), **to bewitch” (Theocr. 5” 6»»; 
Arist. Prohl, 20. 34 [926 b^^]; Herodian 2. 4^0 is used in the Lxx and 
Apocr. (Deut. 28^^’ Sir. i4«' *) with the meaning, *^to envy,” but very 
clearly has here, as in Aristot. and Theocr, loc. ctL, the meaning “to be- 
witch.” For the evidence that the possibility of one person bewitch- 
ing, exercising a spell upon another was matter of current belief both 
among Gentiles and Jews, see HDB, arts. “Magic,” esp. voL III, 
p. 208a, and “Sorcery,” voL IV, p. 605b; M. and M. Voc, s. v. See also 
Ltft. ad loc.; Jastrow, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, pp. 253- 
293; Blau, Das altjUdische Zauberwesen, pp. 23 J*. Concerning the 
practice of magic arts in general, cf. chap. 520 Acts and 

Deissmann, Bible Studies, pp. 273 jf., 323/., 352 Jf. It would be over- 
pressing the facts to infer from Paul’s use of this word that he neces- 
sarily believed in the reality of magical powers, and still more so to 
assume that he supposed the state of mind of the Galatians to be the 
result of such arts. It is more probable that the word, while carrying 
a reference to magical arts, was used by him tropically, as we ourselves 
use the word “bewitch,” meaning “to pervert,” “to confuse the mind.” 

On ol<; xorc’ cf. Aristoph. Ran, 625, tva crot xoct’ d 90 aXpio 6 <; 

and chap. 2^^: xax( 3 j -TcpdcKdicov aOxip dtvx^axiQV. 

npoypdc^xo occurs in Greek writers in three senses: (i) “to write be- 
forehand,” the ^po- being temporal (Rom, 15^ Eph. 3*); (2) “to write 
publicly,” “to register” (Jude 4, but by some assigned to the previous 
sense); (3) “to write at the head of the list.” The third meaning docs 
not occur in biblical writers and may be dismissed as wholly inappro- 
priate to the context. To take it in the first sense as referring to 0 . T. 
prophecy, though consistent with current usage, is excluded by xax' 
690aXp.o6(;; to take it in this sense and refer it to Paul’s own presenta- 
tion of Christ to the Galatians is forbidden by the inappropriateness 
of to describe the apostle’s mva voce preaching; for if xpo- be 

tak:en temporally, iypi&ipr) alone remains to describe the act Itself. 
Many commentators on this passage give to the word the sense “to 
paint publicly,” “to depict before, or openly.” So Th, Jowett, and 
Sief., the last-named citing, also, Calv. deW. Holst. Phil. Lips. ZdckL 
el ai. The argument for this meaning rests not upon extant instances 
of In this sense, but upon the usage of the simple rpdcf0 in 

the sense “to paint” and the appropriateness of the meaning “to de- 
pict publicly” to this context. But in view of the absaace of vouchers 
for this meanmg“~even the instances of Ypdsfw in the soasc “to paint” 
are, so far at least as cited by lexicographers or commentaton on this 
paswge, much earlier than the N, T, period— and of the fact that tak- 
ing xpofTP- the meaning “to write publicly,” “to placard,” yidda a 
meaning more suitable to iaxmp^i^iivo^ (sec below), it b beat to acc^t 
riiis latte morning for this passage, and to understand the aj^de » 

Ill, r 145 

describing his preaching to the Galatians under the figure of public 
announcement or placarding of Jesus before them. 

'EarTaopci)tJi-^voc; means ‘‘having been crucified,” and doubtless in the 
sense of “having been put to death on the cross”; the perfect participle 
expresses an existing (in this case permanent) result of the past fact of 
crucifixion. To express the idea “in the act of being crucified” would 
require a present participle, if the thought were “in the act of being 
affixed to the cross,” and probably if it were “hanging on the cross.” 
For while the verb ff'caup6(o may be used of the affixing to the 
cross (Mt. 27®®), yet it seems usually to refer to the putting to death on 
the cross as a whole (Acts etc.) and the participle iazaugmivoq 

is used in N. T. of Jesus, not as having been affixed to the cross and 
hanging there, but invariably of him as one who was put to death on 
the cross, and thenceforth, though risen from the dead, the crucified 
one. See Mt, 28® Mk. 16® x Cor. i” 2*. The tense of the participle, 
therefore, constitutes a strong objection to taking xpcypciipcd in the 
sense of “paint before,” and in favour of the meaning “to placard, to 
post publicly”; a picture would doubtless present Jesus on the cross; 
the crucifixion as an accomplished fact would be matter for public 
writing, announcement, as it were, on a public bulletin. 

(root: sta) occurs from Homer down, meaning a stake, used 
for fencing {Od. 14^0 or driven into the ground for a foundation (Hdt. 
Si«). aTraup6(i> used in Thuc. 7. 25^ meaning “ to fence with stakes,” first 
appears in Polybius with reference to a means of inflicting death (i. 86<), 
where it probably means “ to crucify.” Polybius also uses dvaaTraup^w 
apparently in the same sense (x. ii“; i. 24*; x. 79*)} ^so with the 
meaning “to impale” (a dead body, 5. 54*; 3 . 23®), which is its meaning 
in Hdt. 6®®; 9’*, etc.; Thuc. i. iio»; Plato 473^; Xen, An. 3. 

In Esth. 7® 8i» line 34 (Swete ifiw) it is used of the hanging of Haman 
upon a gallows (m ?<iXov), said in 5'" to be fifty cubits high. In 7* 
ai:aup6<.) translates “to hang,” elsewhere in this book translated 
with reference to the same event by x.pep.d:vvup.t. Impalement or 
hanging as a method of inflicting death, or as applied to the dead 
body of a criminal, was practised by various ancient nations, e. g., the 
Assyrians {cf. the Lexicons of Delitzsch and Muss-Amolt under Zagapu 
and Zagipu; Schrader, Kdlinsckriflmdes A. T.\ pp, 387/.; Code of Ham- 
murabi, Statute 153, in Winckler, Die Gesetze Eammurahis in Urn- 
schrift u. Uebmetzung, p. 45, or R. F. Harper, The Code cf HammuraU, 
p. 55); the Egyptians {cf. Gen. 40** Jos. Ant. 2. 73 ls®l) ; the Persians {cf. 
Eaira 6 ^ 0 ; but it is not possible always to determine precisely what 
method is referred to. Among the Jews the bodies of certain criminals 
were after death hanged upon a tree or impaled (Josh. 8®® io®« 2 Sam. 
41*), but there Is no sufficient evidence that these methods were used for 
inflicting death, 2 Sam. being too obscure to sustain this conclu- 



sion. Hanging in the modem sense, of suspension causing immediate 
death by strangulation, is referred to as a means of committing suicide, 
Hdt. 2131 ; Thuc. 3»i; 2 Sam. 17** Tob. 31“ Mt. 27**, but was probably un- 
known in ancient times as a means of inflicting the death penalty. 
Crucifixion, i. the afl&xing of the body of the criminal, while still 
living, to an upright post (with or without a crosspiece) to which the 
body was nailed or otherwise fastened, death resulting from pain and 
hunger after hours of suffering, was not a Jewish method of punish- 
ment; though employed by Alexander Jannaeus, Jos. BelL i. 17 (4®), 
it was inflicted upon Jews, as a rule, only by the Romans. With 
what nation or in what region this peculiarly cruel form of death pen- 
alty originated is not wholly certain. Diod. Sic. 17. 46^ speaking of 
Alexander the Great bctore Tyre, says: 6 {iaatXeO? . . , t:o 5 c . . . 
vdouc o6x IXcJcttou? Tcliv Ixp^paae. Romans of 

the later days of the republic and early days of the empire ascribed 
its origin to Punic Carthage, but perhaps without good evidence. 
Among the Romans crucifixion was for a time (but perhaps not orig- 
inally) practised only in the case of slaves and the worst of ciimi- 
nals. When the use of it was gradually extended, especially in the 
provinces (Jos. 17.295 [10^®]; 5.449-51: [ii:^]) to others than 

these, it retained the idea of specnal disgrace. 

The word properly referring to the upright stake, came 

through its use with reference to the implement of crutnfixion to desig- 
nate what we now know as a cross (in N. T. the word is still 
used, Acts 5« io®» i Pet. cf. GaL 3'*), and through the fact that it 
was on the cross that Jesus suffered death, came to be employed by 
metonymy for the death of Jesus, carrying with it by association the 
thought of the suffering and the disgrace in the eyes of men which that 
death involved and of the salvation whitii through it is achieved for 
men. See chap. 5” i Cor. Phil Col. 

On the croas and rnicifixion in general, and the crucifixion of Jesus 
in particular, see Cremer, BibL^ThmL WMerb> Zdckler, Das Kreus 
CMsii; Fulda, Das Kmtz und dk Kremigmg; W. W. Seymour, The 
Cross in TratUlion, History^ and Art^ esp. the bibliography, pp. XXI-- 
XXX; the articles **CrO'HS^^ and ** Hanging’* in Bneye. MM, iind il/JB, 
and those on ‘‘Kreiiz** and “ Krtmigung** in PME,^ and in Wetor and 
Welte, Kirchmkxikon ; Mommsen, RSmisehis SimfrmMf pp. 918 jf.; 

art. **Crux** in Pauly-Wissowa, Reakncydopddk i, Mmischn 
AU&imms^dssmsckaft (with references to literature). On the arch«- 
olO'gy of the emm Zidckler refers especially to Llpdus, D$ Crwce, Ant- 
werp, 1595; Ztttermaan, Dk bUdlkhe DarsMung dis Krmm u. der 
Krmmigung Jmm ChrkM kkkrisck mkdckdtf Leipzig, *867; Degen, Dm 
Krem ds SiraJ^rkMmg u. Strafe dir AUm^ Aachen, 1S73; the Cenie of 
Hammurabi, Statute 153 (In Winckkr or Harrier); Birch and Pinches, 

The Bronze Ornaments of the Palace Gates of Balawat, London, 1902, 
Plates B2, D4 and J3. 

2 . TovTo fjiovov 6eX<jp fiadetv a(j> vfi&Vy ef epyo^v v6fiov to 
TTvevfjLa ekd^ere rj a/co ^9 irtcrreax;; ^^This only would I learn 
from you, Received ye the Spirit on ground of works of law or 
of a hearing of faith?’’ A forcible appeal to the experience of 
the Galatians. The implication of fiovov is that an answer to 
the question about to be asked would itself be a decisive argu- 
ment. For fiavddpcp in the general sense here illustrated, ^‘to 
ascertain,” ^‘to find out,” see Acts 23^7 Col. iL On epycav 
vdpLoVj see detached note on N0V09 and note on 2^®. a/cof^ 
•jrlarew is a hearing (of the gospel) accompanied by faith (see 
detached note on in other words, a believing-hearing, 

acceptance, of the gospel, to TrvevpLa undoubtedly refers to the 
Spirit of God (see detached note on Uvevfia and and espe- 
cially III B. I (a) in the analysis of meanings on p, 490). The 
receiving of the Spirit here referred to is evidently that which 
marked the beginning of their Christian lives; cf. ivap^dpLevot 
V.® and see Rom. 8^® 2 Cor. 5®. That the apostle has espe- 
cially, though not necessarily exclusively, in mind the charismatic 
manifestations of the Spirit evidenced by some outward sign, 
such as speaking with tongues or prophesying, is indicated by 
the reference to SvvdpL€t^ in v. See also Acts 10^4-47 

ii^®' 19^-® I Cor. i2^’^h The two contrasted phrases ef ^pywp 

vopLov and ef a/co ^9 TrCcrrew express the leading antithesis of 
the whole epistle, and by this question Paul brings the issue 
between the two contrasted principles of religious life to the 
test of experience. The answer which the experience of the 
Galatians would supply, and which therefore did not require 
to be expressed, was of course e| a/co ^9 Triarrem. The testi- 
mony of these vv. that Paul in his preaching in Galatia and 
doubtless elsewhere, since he more than once in this epistle 
implicitly claims always to have preached the same gospel (see 
on and 2^), presented his message to the Gentiles wholly 
divorced from any insistence upon the acceptance of 0 . T. 
teadungs as such, is of capital importance, both in defin- 
ing for us the contmt of his gospel (c/. also i Thc«. i^°) and 



as showing how completely he had early in his career as an 
apostle, and not simply when forced to it by controversy, repu- 
diated the principle of scripture authority. 

3. o{5tw? avorjroi eo-rc; ivap^ajMevoi irveipari vvv (rapxl 
cTTtTeXetff^e; “Are ye so foolish? having begun with Spirit, 
are ye now finishing with flesh?” The antithesis is twofold; 
beginning . . . completing; spirit . . . flesh, imp^dpevoc trv. 
recalls irv., but instead of following up their assumed 

mental answer to his question, viz.: “we received the Spirit by 
a hearing of faith,” in which faith would have been the emphatic 
term, the apostle transfers the emphasis to TTpevpa, which his 
previous question took for granted, as an element in their early 
Christian experience. Apparently it seems to him that the 
antithesis “spirit” and “flesh” is at this point a more effective 
one for his purpose than “faith” and “works of law.” On the 
meaning of the words wevpa and see detached note, pp. 
4.86 Jf., especially the discussion of the use of these terms in 
antithesis, p. 494. wvevpaTi doubtless refers, as does to jrvevpa 
above, to the Spirit of God,and aapKt is used in a purely material 
sense, meaning “flesh” or “body,” as that which is circumcised. 
That the antithesis between trvevpM and cdp^ is quite different 
in chap. 5 is no objection to this interpretation here; for in 
view of the fact that the precise aim of the judaisers was to 
induce the Galatians to be circumcised, a reference to the flesh 
would be naturally taken by them as referring to this, and no 
other meaning would be likely to occur to them. That <rapKC 
has a relation to ip^a vdpov in that circumcision falls in the 
category of “works of law” is, of course, obvious, but trapKl is 
not, therefore, to be taken as equivalent to that phrase or as 
denoting the natural powers of men apart from the divine 
Spirit, (i) because ^pya v6pov does not in the preceding sen- 
tence stand in antithesis with mievpa, and (2) l)ecause there is 
nothmg in the context to suggest the introduction of this mean- 
ing of a-dp^. The absence of the article with both ttv. and crap. 
giv« them a qualitative force, and heightens the contrast be- 
tween the two possible agencies of salvation: (divine) Spirit, 
and (material) fle^. That vpevpxi is to be taken in a wider 

in, 3-4 


sense, as including both the divine Spirit which operates and 
the human spirit as the sphere of operation, is possible, but 
improbable in view of the nearness of to Trvevfia with its express 
reference to the divine Spirit, irveifian and (rap/ci are doubt- 
less instrumental datives, which is, however, no objection to 
taking the latter as referring to the flesh, in the material sense, 
for though the flesh is, strictly speaking, passive in circum- 
cision, that aspect of the fact is a matter of indifference for the 
purpose of the argument. 

On. Ivap 5 - and iTctTeX- 'cf, Phil. i«. IxtxeX. occurs elsewhere in 
N. T. in the active (Rom. 1528 2 Cor. 71 Phil, Heb. S® 9O in the 
sense “to accomplish,’^ “to complete,” and in i Pet. 5® in the form 
iTciTeXetaSat, which is probably to be taken as a middle (see Bigg 
ad loc.). The Lxx use the word in active and passive, not in middle. 
But the existence of a middle usage in Greek writers (Plat. PUL 27C; 
Xen. Mem, 4. 8*; Polyb. i. 40^^; 2. 58^°; 5. 108® cited by Sief.) and the 
antithesis of Ivap?- a word of active force, favours taking sTutTeX- also 
as a middle form with active sense, “to finish, to complete.” 

4 . Toaravra hrdOer^ eltcy; et 76 Kal etfcy, ^^Did ye suffer 
so great things in vain? If it really is to be in vain.’' A refer- 
ence to the great experiences through which the Galatians had 
already passed in their life as Christians, and in effect an appeal 
to them not to let these experiences be of no avail. The word 
€7ra^€T€ is, so far as our evidence enables us to decide, a neutral 
term, not defining whether the experiences referred to were 
painful or otherwise. eH ye fcal el/cQ shows that the question 
whether these experiences are to be in vain is still in doubt, 
depending on whether the Galatians actually yield to the 
persuasion of the judaisers or not. C/., as illustrating the 
alternation of hope and fear in the apostle’s mind, 4^^* 5^0. 7^ 

emphasises the contingency and suggests that the condition 
need not be fulfilled. 

Tbe verb %&<sx(a is in itself of neutral significance, “to experience,” 
i 3 meaning “to be well off,” “to receive benefits,” and xaxfii? 

or -jdc(JX«tv, “to suffer iUs”; yet has in usage so far a pred- 
Eection for use in reference to ills that icdcrxetv alone signifies “to 
suffer” (ills), and to express the idea “to experience” (good) requires 
as a rule the addition of or an eqmvalent indication in the contmt. 


There is indeed nothing in the immediate limitations of the word in 
Jos. Ant, 3.312 (isO* 6ico[jLV^aai {Jl 4 v, Sera ’3ca66vTe<; I? a^Tou 

{i, e.j 06ou) xal iciQXfxGJv s^spYsotwv tJt.eTaXaP6vTS(; xpbg a^T^v 

yIvoivto, to indicate that it is employed in a good sense, but it is 
relieved of its ambiguity by the closely following xtqX{x(»>v eOepys- 
<rt6>v, if not, indeed, in part by 15 czStou. Since there is nothing 
in the context of the Galatian passage distinctly to suggest a bene- 
ficial meaning, the presumption is in favour of the more usual adverse 
meaning; and this would undoubtedly be the meaning conveyed to the 
Galatians if they had in fact been exposed to severe sufferings in con- 
nection with their acceptance of the gospel. On the other hand, if 
they had suffered no such things this meaning would evidently be 
excluded, and the word would refer to the benefits spoken of in w. *. 
If we adopt the opinion that the letter was addressed to people of 
southern Galatia, we may find in Acts 1422 an intimation of persecutions 
or other like sufferings to which the present passage might refer; but 
no evidence that they were of sufficient severity to merit the term 
TOCTaura. If the churches were in northern Galatia we are unable to say 
whether they had suffered or not. For lack of knowledge of the cir- 
cumstances, therefore, we must probably forego a decision of the 
question whether the experiences were pleasant or painful, and for 
this very reason understand the term x^cOe-re in a neutral sense, or, 
more exactly, recognise that the term is for us ambiguous, though it 
could hardly have been so to Paul and the Galatians. This leaves the 
meaning of elxfj also somewhat in doubt. If the 'uoiraO'ca are the 
preaching of the gospel and the gift of the Spirit, then elxfi means 
‘^without effect” (as in 4“); if the reference is to persecutions it prob- 
ably means “needlessly,” “without good cause” (Col. 2'«), the impli- 
cation bemg that if they give up the gospel which Paul preached they 
will have abandoned Christ (5*"*) and might just as well have remained 
as they were (note the implication of 4^0; or if the persecutions were 
instigated by the Jews, that they might have escaped them by accept- 
ing Judaism, with its legalism, which they are now on the point of 
taking on. 

ToaoEum in a large preponderance of cases means in the plural “so 
many” (see L. & S., Th.) and, with the possible exception of Jn. 128^^ 
always has that meaning elsewhere in N. T. The meaning “so great” 
is, however, possible (see Preusch. .j. v)^ and in view of the fact that 
it is manifestly more natural for Paul to appeal to the greatness than 
simply to the number of the experiences of the Galatians is perhaps 
to be adopted here. So Wies. and Preusch. 

Sief. finds in e! . . . a reason for taking TocraGm . . . 
not as a question but an exclamation, which is, of course, possible, but 
not necessary because of the conditional clause; for this is, in any 

Ill, 4—5 

case, not a true protasis of a preceding apodosis, but is to be mentally 
attached to some such supplied clause as, “which I am justified in 
saying.” The dictum that sX 76 introduces an assumption that the 
writer believes to be true (Vigerus, ed. Hermann, p. 831, cited by Th.), 
is not regarded by recent authorities as true for classical Greek (see 
L. & S. sub. 7^ I 3, Kiihner-Gerth, II i, pp. 177 /.), and certainly does 
not correspond to the usage of N. T. writers. Where the assumption 
is one that is regarded as fulfilled (Rom. 2 Cor. 53 Eph. 4 * 0 , it is the 
context that conveys the implication. In Col. i** there is no such 
implication, and perhaps not in Eph. 3*. See WM. p. 561, fn. 6, 
and Ell. Ltft. Sief. In the present passage the conditional clause 
must be understood without implication as to its fulfilment, since the 
context, indeed the whole letter, shows that while the apostle fears 
that the Galatians are about to turn back and so prove themselves 
'coaauTa xaOstv e.iY.% yet he hoped, and was in this very appeal seek- 
ing, to avert this disaster. See esp. 4” 57-10- 

6. o odp €7rcxopr]fy&P vjup to Tn/ev/ua fcal ipepy&p Svpd/jL€c<i 
ip vpZp ef epfyoap pdfiov i^ d/co7](^ Tr/o-reo)?; “He therefore that 
supplied the Spirit richly to you, and wrought miracles among 
you, did he do these things on ground of works of law or of 
a hearing of faith?’’ This sentence in effect repeats the 
question of v. % and, like that, is doubtless to be understood as 
referring to the experiences of the Galatians in connection 
with and shortly after their conversion. The two participles, 
iirixopi^^&p and ipepy&p, limited by one article evidently refer 
to the same person, and describe related activities affecting 
the same persons {v/mp ip vfxlp). It is obvious, there- 
fore, that the two parts of the phrase are to be regarded as 
mutually interpretative. This, in turn, implies that the apostle 
has in mind chiefly the charismatic manifestation of the Spirit 
(see detached note on Upevfia and I D III B, i(a), p. 
490) , which attests itself in Svpdfieis and other kindred manifesta- 
tions (see X Cor. 12^0 2 Cor. 1212^ and for the use of the word 
Bvpafm Mk. 6^ Lk. 16^^ Acts 2^, etc.). Yet it must also be 
borne in mind that in the view of the apostle it was one Spirit 
that produced alike the outward xaplcrpiara and the inward 
moral fruit of the Spirit (chap. 522. and hence that the latter 
though not included in Bvvdfiec^ is not necessarily excluded 
from the thought expressed by imxopri^&v vpiv to Ttpedfia; 



the words ivepy&v * * . vfuv may be narrower in scope than 
the preceding phrase. The whole phrase o ovv , . , iv vfxlv is 
a designation of God {cf, chap. 4® i Thes. 4® 2 Cor. 1^2, and espe- 
cially Rom. 5^, where the idea of abundant supply, here ex- 
pressed by is conveyed by e/c«:e%uTa;t). deo^ is 

omitted and left to be supplied in thought as in 2 « and probably 
in also. Zvvdp^L^ referring to outward deeds, ev v^lv natu- 
rally takes the meaning “among you’" {cf. on ep roh edveaiv, 
22); yet in view of the dative viilv after eTTLXoprjy&p the 
hvvdiieb^ must be supposed to have been wrought not prin- 
cipally by Paul but by the Galatians themselves, as i Cor. 
j2io. 28. 29 imply was the case among the Corinthians. 2 Cor. 
1212 indeed suggests that such things were signs of the apostle, 
yet probably not in the sense that he only wrought them, but 
that the ^vvdjxa^ of the apostle were in some way more notable, 
or that they constituted a part of the evidence of his apostle- 
ship. The phrases epycov vo/jlov and aKorj^: Tr^-reco? are, 
of course, to be taken as in the similar question in v. \ 

*EictxoP*j comp, of i%( and %opiQY^, expresses strongly the idea “to 
supply abundantly.” The simple verb means to defray the expense 
of providing a “chorus” at the public feast. In view of 2 Pet. i®, 
I'jctxopTjyi^aa'ce Iv Tij TcfoTei 6^6>v -riljv tipexi^v, and Phil, ^xtxoptjYiocc 
ToO xveOpLatoq, the preposition is to be interpreted not as directive 
(so Ell. Beet, Sief.), but, with Ltft., as additive and hence in effect 
intensive, and, therefore, as still further emphasising the idea of abun- 
dance. Cf. 2 Cor. 9^“ Col. 2^* 2 Pet. i®* From these participles, 
Ixtxop- and Ivepy., the unexpressed verbs of the sentence are to be 
supplied, but they afford no clue to the tense of such verbs. To this 
the only guide is the fact that the apostle is still apparently speaking 
of the initial Christian experience of the Galatians and, in effect, repeat- 
ing here the question of v. K This would suggest aoiists here also, 
and ev^p^tjcre. The participles may be either general 
presents (Blfr 123), in effect equivalent to nouns, “the supplier,” 
“the worker,” or progressive presents, and in that case participles of 
identical action, since they refer to the same action as the unexpressed 
principal verbs {BMT 120). The choice of the present tense rather 
than the aorist shows that the apostle has in mind an experience ex- 
tended enough to be thought of as in progress, but not that it is in 
progress at the time of writing (Beet), or that the participle is an 
imperfect participle (Sief.; cf. BMT 127). 


m, 5-6 

2. Argument from the faith of Abraham ^ refuting the 
contention of his opponents that only through con- 
formity to law could men become sons of Abraham 


Passing abruptly, in a subordinate clause, from the early 
experience of the Galatians to the case of Abraham, the argu- 
ment of the apostle revolves, from this point to the end of 
chap. 4, mainly around the subject of the blessing to Abraham 
and the conditions on which men may participate in it. In 
these verses he aflirms at the outset his fundamental conten- 
tion that Abraham was justified by faith, and that so also must 
all they be justified who would inherit the blessing promised to 
his seed. 

^As Abraham belieoed God and it was reckoned to him for right- 
eousness,^^ "^KnoWj therefore, that the men of faith, these are sons 
of Abraham, ^And the scripture, foreseeing that God would 
justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the gospel to 
Abraham beforehand, saying, thee shall all the nations he 
blessed,^^ ^So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful 
(believing) Abraham. 

6 . fcaday: iirCcTTevcTev Kal ekoyCadri avrm 

€19 SiKaLoavvTfv,^^ ^'as Abraham believed God, and it was 
reckoned to him for righteousness.'’ The apostle assumes that 
to his question of v.® his readers will, in accordance with the 
historic facts, answer: dKor}<; 7r/crT€c*)9. To this answer he 

attaches a comparison between the faith of the Galatians and 
that of Abraham. The next two chapters, in which the argu- 
ment revolves largely around Abraham and Abraham's sons (see 
37. 8, 14, 16, 18, 29 422-31)^ show that this is no mere incidental illus- 
tration, but fills a vital place in his argument. The fact itself 
suggests, what an examination of the argument confirms, that 
Paul is here replying to an argument of his opponents. This 
argument, we may safely conjecture, was based on Gen. chaps. 
12 and 17, especially and most especially and was 

to the effect that according to O. T. no one could participate in 
the blessings of God's covenant with Abraham, and so in the 



messianic salvation that is inseparably associated with it, who 
was not circumcised. Neither the usage of StfcaLOcrvvr] (see de- 
tached note on Ai/cato^y At/caiocrvvrj and AtKatoo), pp. 469 jf.), 
nor that of eh (see below), is decisive as between the 

two meanings: (i) '^it was attributed to him as right conduct,’^ 
i. e.y '^he was accounted to have acted righteously,’’ and (2) ^'it 
was reckoned to him as ground of acceptance.” The general 
context, however, dealing predominantly with righteousness in 
the forensic aspect, acceptance with God, decides for the latter 
meaning. Against the argument probably advanced by his 
opponents in Galatia to the effect that under the covenant with 
Abraham no one is acceptable to God who is not circumcised 
(Gen. 17^^; cf. Jub. chap. 15, esp. v.^^ ), Paul points out that, 
according to the scripture, to Abraham himself it was his faith 
that was accounted as ground of acceptance. 

AoYfi^o{jLat is used in Greek writers frequently and in a variety of 
applications of the general meaning “to reckon, to calculate, to deem, 
to consider.” To express the idea “to credit or charge something to 
one’s account, to put it to his account,” the Greeks used Xcy** Ttvt- 
(Dem. 2641*; Lev. According to Cremer, “to account a thing 

as being this or that, or having a certain value,” was expressed by 
Xoy- with two accusatives (Xen. Cyr. 1. (2(jL9a) tto^tcd fjyi^pa 

XoyCCfivxai). In the Lxx Xo’^(X,o[lou is the translation of “to 
reckon,” “to account.” Ip N. T. it is used with much the same varia- 
tion of meanings as in cl. Gr., and the idea “to credit or charge to 
one” is expressed in the same way. (Rom. 4*> ® 2 Cor. 5^®; cf. Prov. 
17^). “To reckon a thing or person to be this or that,” or “to account 
a thing as having a certain value,” is expressed as it is in the Lxx, 
who translate the Heb, ^ :i?^n by Xcy. elq. The examples show that 
this form of expression may have either of the above-named mean- 
ings; “to think (one) to be this or that,” or “to count as having the 
value of this or that.” Thus in i Sam. iXoyi<socxo ’HXl e?«; 

p.e66oucrav, it clearly bears the former meaning; so also Rom, 9*, tA 
Tix,va hcayy^Xiat; XoydCfixat ei? vxlppia. But ip Acts 19®’^: 
xtvBuvefiet . . . lepbv eEg oflGlv Xoyia6^vat, and in Rom. 2“: o5% ^ 
<ixpopuai:{a a^Too eC<; iueptxc4i.*?)v the latter is appar- 

ently the meaning. See also Gen. 151® Ps. 105 (io6)»' Isa. 291^ 32“ 
401’' Lam. 4^ Hos. 8^2 Wisd. 3*7 g« Jas. 2^. Even in this second class 
of cases, however, the word itself conveys no implication of a reckon- 
ing above or contrary to real value, as Cremer maintains. If this 


III, 6-7 

thought is conveyed it must be by the limitations of the word, not by 
the word itself. There being in the present passage no such limita- 
tions, the idea of estimation contrary to fact can not legitimately be 
discovered in the passage. Nor can it be imported into this passage 
from Rom. 4^'®, concerning which see in detached note on At%aioa-6vTj, 
p. 470. 

7. TLVWcrKere dpa on oi etc Tr/o-reo)?, oifTot vloC eicriv *A/3- 
padfx. “Know therefore that the men of faith, these are 
sons of Abraham.’^ 7rLcrn<; is here not specifically faith in 
Jesus Christ, but, as the absence of the article suggests, and the 
context with its reference on the one hand to Abraham’s faith 
in God and on the other to the faith of believers in Jesus clearly 
indicates, faith qualitatively thought of and in a sense broad 
enough to include both these forms of it. Here, as in Rom. 

Paul distinctly implies the essential oneness of faith, towards 
whatever expression or revelation of God it is directed. The 
preposition e/c describes source, yet not source of being — they 
do not owe their existence to faith — ^but source of character and 
standing, existence after a certain manner. The expression 
oi etc 7rC(TT€co<;^ f:herefore, means “those who believe and whose 
standing and character are determined by that faith”; men of 
faith in the sense of those of whose life faith is the determinative 
factor. Here appears for the first time the expression “ sons of 
Abraham,” which with its synonyme, “seed of Abraham,” is, as 
pointed out above, the centre of the argument in chaps. 3 and 4. 
apa marks this statement as a logical consequence of the pre- 
ceding. Abraham believed God, and was on that ground 
accepted by God; therefore, the sons of Abraham are men of 
faith. The sentence itself shows that “sons of Abraham” is 
not to be taken in a genealogical, but, in the broad use of the 
term, an ethical sense. The context indicates clearly that by it 
Paul means those who are heirs of the promise made to Abra- 
ham, and to be fulfilled to his seed (vv. 2®). 

' The unexpressed premise of this argument is that men become 
acceptable to God and heirs of the promise on the same basis on which 
Abraham himself was accepted. The ground of this premise in Paul’s 
mind was doubtless his conviction that God deals with all men on 



the same moral basis; in other words, that there is no respect of per- 
sons with God (chap. 2«; cf. Rom. 2^1 Sir. 35^*). The expressed 
premise, derived from scripture, is that this basis was faith. Those 
who put forth the argument to which this was an answer would have 
accepted the apostle’s deJinition of sons (or seed) of Abraham, and 
would probably not have directly contradicted either the expressed 
or the unexpressed premise of his argument, but would practically 
have denied the expressed premise. They had probably reached their 
conclusion, that to be sons of Abraham men must be circumcised, by 
ignoring faith as the basis of Abraham’s justification, and appealing 
to the express assertion of scripture that the seed of Abraham must 
be circumcised, and that he who will not be circumcised shall be cut 
off from God’s people, having broken his covenant (Gen. The 

apostle in turn ignores their evidence, and appeals to Gen. i5«. In 
fact the whole passage, Gen. chaps. 12-17, furnishes a basis for both 
lines of argument. The difference between Paul and his opponent is 
not in that one appealed to scripture and the other rejected it, but that 
each selected his scripture according to the bent of his own prejudice 
or experience, and ignored that which was contrary to it. 

Ramsay’s explanation of v. ^ as grounded in Greek customs and 
usages respecting adoption, and as meaning that because among the 
Gentiles is found the property of Abraham, viz., his faith, therefore 
they must be his sons, since only a son can inherit property, ignores 
all the evidence that Paul is here answering judaistic arguments, and 
is, therefore, moving in the atmosphere not of Greek but of Old Tes- 
tament thought, and goes far afield to import into the passage the far- 
fetched notion of faith as an inheritable property of Abraham. See his 
(km. on Gal. pp. 338^. 


It has been suggested above that in the employment of this phrase 
Paul is turning against his judaising opponents a weapon which they 
have first endeavoured to use against him, rather than himself intro- 
dudng the term to the Galatians and founding on it an argument 
intended to appeal to their unprejudiced minds. It is in favour of this 
view that the evidence that has been left us does not indicate that it 
was Paul’s habit to commend Christ to the Gentiles either on O. T. 
grounds in general or in particular on the ground that through the 
acceptance of Jesus they would become members of the Jewish nation. 
See, e. g., the reports of his speeches in Acts, i Thes., esp. i*"*» i Cor, 2* 
Phil. 3»'». There is, indeed, an approximation to this form of argu- 
ment in Rom. chaps. 4 and 11. But in both these chapters the apostle 
is rebutting an argument put forth (or anticipated as likely to be put 
forth) from the side of the judaisers; chap. *4 contending that in the 


III, 7 

case of Abraham there is nothing to disprove, but on the contrary 
much to establish, the principle of the justification of uncircumcised 
Gentiles through faith, and chap, ii maintaining that the purpose of 
God does not come to nought because of the rejection of Israel from 
its place of peculiar privilege, but finds fulfilment in the elect people, 
whether Jews or Gentiles. Moreover, precisely in respect to the 
Galatians do the testimonies of vv. and 5 ’'* “ of this chapter, and 
indicate with special clearness that PauPs preaching to them and 
their acceptance of Christ had been on an independently Christian 
basis — Christ crucified, faith in him, Christian baptism, the gift of 
the Spirit manifested in charismatic powers. 

An examination of chaps. 3 and 4, moreover, reveals that Paul’s 
argument here is mainly of the nature of rebuttal. Thus the recurrent 
expressions, “sons of Abraham” (3^), “blessed with faithful Abra- 
ham” (3®), “blessing of Abraham” (3*^), “the covenant” and “the 
seed” (3^®"^’), “Abraham’s seed” (3*^), all of which have their basis 
in Gen. 12 and 17 (cf. Gen. i2« and the express quotation in 3* 

of the words of Gen. 12’, all combine to indicate that the O. T. back- 
ground of the discussion is largely that furnished by Gen. chaps. 12, 17. 
But if we turn to these chapters it is at once clear not only that they 
furnish no natural basis for a direct argument to the effect that the 
Gentiles may participate in the blessing of the Abrahamic salvation 
without first becoming attached to the race of his lineal descendants, 
but that they furnish the premises for a strong argument for the 
position which Paul is here combating. Thus in Gen. there is 
repeated mention of a covenant between God and Abraham, an ever- 
lasting covenant with Abraham and his seed throughout their genera- 
tions, a covenant of blessing on God’s part and obligation on their 
part, which he and his seed after him are to keep throughout their 
generation, and it is said: “This is my covenant which ye shall keep 
between me and you and thy seed after thee; every male among you 
shall be circumcised” (v.'®) . . . “and it shall be a token of a covenant 
betwixt you and me” (v.u). V.»*, moreover, states that this shall 
apply both to him that is born in the house and to him that is bought 
with money of any foreigner, and declares that “the uncircumcised 
male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that soul shall 
be cut off from his people — ^he hath broken my covenant.” In 12®, 
indeed, it is stated that in Abraham all the nations of the earth shall 
be blessed (so Paul interprets the sentence), yet there is nothing in 
this to intimate that they are to receive this blessing apart from a 
racial relation to Abraham, aud chap. 17 seems to exclude such a 
thought. Indeed, it requires neither perversity nor rabbinic exegesis, 
but only a reasonable adherence to the obvious meaning of the passage, 
to find in these chapters the doctrine that God’s covenant of blessing 



was with Abraham and his seed, that none could be included in that 
covenant save those who being of the blood of Abraham were sealed 
as his seed by circumcision, or who being adopted into the nation from 
without also received the seal of circumcision, and that any who refused 
thus to receive circumcision could have no part in the people of God 
or the blessing to Abraham's seed, since they had ^‘broken God’s cov- 
enant.” “The covenant with Abraham,’' “the seed of Abraham,’' 
“blessed with faithful Abraham” (cf. Jub. 171* igs-O, “in Abraham 
(with an emphasis on ‘in’) shall all the nations of the world be 
blessed”— -these are apparently the premises and stock phrases of the 
judaiser's argument — to which was doubtless added, as we can see 
from Gal. the obvious inference that to enjoy these blessings one 
must be circumcised, as Gen, 171^- says. To the judaiser, whose argu- 
ments Paul is answering, “seed of Abraham” meant, as to the Phari- 
saic author of the book of Jubilees (see chap. 15, esp. v.*b), the circum- 
cised descendant of Abraham, with whom might also be included the 
circumcised proselyte; and to these he limited the blessing of the cove- 
nant with Abraham, and so in effect the blessing of God. 

That all this would be directly contrary to Paul’s position is also 
evident (cf. 51"®) • It is scarcely less evident that in this third chapter, 
confronted by substantially such an argument as this, he was aiming 
to refute it from the same source from which it was drawn. This he 
does by appeal to Gen. 15®, “Abraham believed God, and it was reck- 
oned to him for righteousness,” which though it lay between the two 
passages which they had used, we may be sure the iudaisers had not 
quoted. On the basis of this passage he puts into their favourite 
phrases, “seed of Abraham,” “blessed with Abraham,” a different con- 
tent from that which they had given to them, and finds for the bless- 
ing with which all the nations were to be blessed a different ground 
and condition. The substitution of “sons of Abraham” for “seed of 
Abraham” contributes somewhat to that end, even if the former 
phrase, which is not in Genesis, is not original with Paul (cf. Jub. 15®®). 
Affirming on the basis of Gen. 15® that the characteristic thing about 
Abraham is his faith,* and taking the expression “sons of Abraham” 
in a sense by no means foreign to Semitic use of the term “son” as 
meaning those who walk in his footsteps (Rom. 4^®), those who are 
like him (cf. sons of God in Mt. Rom. he mamtains that the 
men of faith are sons of Abraham. The various arguments by which 
the apostle endeavours to substantiate this ethical definition of sons of 
Abraham as against the physical definition of the judaiser, and in 
general to show that men obtain God’s blessing not by works of law, 
but by faith, are to be found in this and the following chapter. 

As concerns the apostle’s method of refuting the argument of his 
opponents, it is dear that he does not resort to a grammatico-Mstorical 

in, 7-8 159 

exegesis of Genesis, chap. 17. Aside from the fact that on such a 
basis his opponents must have won, such an argument would scarcely 
have appealed to his Galatian readers. Instead, while retaining the 
terminology of the Abrahamic narrative of Genesis, as the exigencies 
of the situation and the necessity of answering the arguments of his 
opponents compelled him to do, he makes his appeal to the assertions 
of Gen. 15® that it was faith that was accounted by God as right- 
eousness, and to the teaching of O. T. as a whole concerning the basis 
of acceptance with God. Circumcision, which was the chief point of 
contention, he does not mention, perhaps because the argument of his 
opponents on this point could not be directly answered. Instead he 
discusses the larger and underlying question, what is the real nature 
of God’s demands on men and the basis of acceptance with him, con- 
tending that not by the fulfilment of legal statutes but by faith does 
a man become acceptable to God. How he would have dealt with 
one who admitting this central position should still have asked, ‘‘But 
is not circumcision nevertheless required by God?” these chapters do 
not show. That despite the explicit teaching of Gen. 17, he neverthe- 
less did maintain not only that it is faith that justifies, but that cir- 
cumcision was no longer required or, indeed, permissible among Gen- 
tiles, and even went further than this and denied the authority of the 
O. T. statutes as such, shows that he had found some means of dis- 
covering on the basis of experience what portions of O. T. were still of 
value for the religious life. But what kind of experience he conceived 
to be necessary for this purpose, and whether that kind of experience 
specifically called by him revelation was requisite, is not by this pas- 
sage indicated. 

8 . TTpoiSovcra Se 97 ypa(l>r} on iK irlo-Tem StKatot Tct edvr) 6 
^€09 TrpoevTjyyeXLcraTO ^A 0 paafM on ^^*FiV€vXoyr} 6 i]aovTao iv 
rol Trdvra rd edvrjJ^ ^'And the scripture foreseeing that God 
vould justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, announced the 
fospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, In thee shall all the na- 
ions be blessed.^’ This is doubtless PauFs answer to an argu- 
nent put forth by the judaisers to the effect that inasmuch 
Ls it is in Abraham that all the nations are to be blessed, the 
jentiles to be blessed must be in Abraham, i. e,, incorpo- 
ated in his descendants by circumcision. Appealing to the 
act that Abraham was justified by faith (the particle con- 
lects this V. with vJ, itself deduced from v.®), he finds the 
ground and explanation of the promise that the Gentiles would 
)e blessed in Abraham in the foreseen fact of their justification 



by faith after the pattern of his justification. He thus converts 
the very oracle which his opponents have cited (Gen. 123) into 
an announcement, in advance, of his own doctrine that God will 
justify the Gentiles by faith. This is obviously an interpreta- 
tion after the fact. For the nature of the reasoning, see fine 
print below. 

‘H Ypart (sing-), usually at least, denotes a particular passage of 
scripture (see Lk. 4^1 2 Tim. and cf, note on 3*2), and there is no 
reason to depart from this usage here. The passage referred to is 
Gen. 123 igis). xhe participle is causal, “because the scripture 
foresaw.” Attributing foresight to the scripture is, of course, a figure 
of speech for the thought that the divine foresight is expressed in the 
scripture in question. Cf. Philo. Leg. alleg. Ill 118 (40), foijv b 
Upi? X6 yoc* On lx Tclazeoig Stxatot, see detached notes on Ilb'ctc 
and Atxatlo) and notes on 2i«ff*. 5ixaiot is a present for a future (as is 
demanded by xpotSoGaa) in indirect discourse. The choice of the pres- 
ent may be due in a measure to the feeling that what is here stated 
as then future is, in fact, a general principle, God’s rule of action in 
all time. I0viq is clearly “the Gentiles,” not “the nations” in- 
clusively, since it is the former whose justification is under discussion. 
Had he meant to employ an inclusive phrase covering the Gentiles, 
he must have taken over the full phrase Tuckvza tA IOvtj from the quo- 
tation, where it has the more inclusive sense, I0 vt) meaning “nations.” 
xpoeuiQYY®^^'^<^'*^o> found neither elsewhere in N. T. nor in the Lxx or 
Apocr., but in Philo, Optf. mund. 34 (9); Mutat. nom. 158 (29); Schol. 
Soph. Track. 335 {cf. Th. s. and Sief. ad loc.)^ is probably to be taken 
here specifically in the sense “announced the gospel”; this meaning 
accords with the usual N. T. usage of eSaYY^^^Qv ^-nd its cognates, and 
with the fact that what Paul here represents as fore-announced, 
etc., is that which was to him the distinctive and central message of 
the cOaYY^^^o^* 

The quotation follows the Lxx of Gen. i2», but for xaaat a\ ^ulai 
substitutes %&)na tA 20vt] of Gen. 18^*, doubtless for the purpose of 
bringing in the word 20 vij, which Paul desires because of its current 
use in the sense of Gentiles. For a similar reason Y^s found in 
both passages is omitted. No violence is, however, thereby done to 
the meaning of the passage, since what is true of all the families (or 
nations) of the earth is, of course, true of the Gentiles. But in follow- 
ing the Lxx with the passive IveuXoYTQO^crovTae the apostle has prob- 
ably missed the meaning of the Hebrew, which is, “In thee shi^ all 
the families of the earth bless thanselves,” i. e., shall make thee the 
standard of blessing, saying, “May God bless us as he blessed Abra- 

Ill, 8 i6i 

ham.’* He doubtless takes Iv in its causal, basal sense, meaning ^'on 
the basis of what he is or has done,” and interprets it as having ref- 
erence to his faith. By virtue of his faith and the establishment in 
connection with it of the principle of justification by faith a blessing is 
conferred on all the Gentiles, since to them also faith is possible. Whether 
the apostle has specifically in mind here the fact that Abraham, when 
he believed and had his faith accounted as righteousness, was himself 
uncircumcised and, therefore, himself a “Gentile” (as in Rom. 4^°* ^0 
is doubtful. There is no reference to that aspect of the matter. 

Paul’s discovery in the language of Gen. 12^ of the fact that God will 
justify the Gentiles on ground of faith, and that, therefore, this state- 
ment is a pre-evangelic announcement of the gospel (of justification 
by faith) is not, of course, based on a verbal exegesis of the sentence 
as it stands either in Heb. or Lxx. The language itself and alone 
will sustain neither his view nor that which we have above supposed 
the judaisers to have found in it. But the effort to discover a more 
definite meaning than the words themselves conveyed was on both 
sides legitimate. The passage meant to the original author more 
than its words simply as words expressed. The phrase crof, in par- 
ticular, is a condensed and ambiguous expression which calls for closer 
definition. The judaiser doubtless found the basis of his view in a 
genealogical sense of iv, reinforced by Gen. 17®"^^. Paul may have 
based his interpretation in part on the context of Gen. 12*. In its ref- 
erence to Abraham’s response to the divine command to leave his 
father’s house and go out into another land (see Heb. ii» for evidence 
that this act of Abraham was in Paul’s day accounted one of faith and 
cf. v.» for evidence that Paul had that phase of it in mind here) he may 
have found ground for interpreting iv aol as meaning, ^‘in thee, be- 
cause by this exercise of faith in God thou hast given occasion to the 
establishment and announcement of the principle that God’s approval 
and blessing are upon those that believe.” If this principle is estab- 
lished in Abraham’s case it follows not only that the blessing that the 
Gentiles are to receive is divine acceptance, but that such acceptance 
is on ground of faith. Secondly, he may have found in the fact that 
the blessing was extended to all the nations evidence of the fact that 
it was not to be bestowed on the basis of the law, since the Gentiles 
were not under the law. Yet this reasoning would be precarious, since 
it was easy to reply that Gen. 17 made it clear that the nations could 
partake in the Abrahamic blessing only in case they joined the seed 
of Abraham by circumcision. Thirdly, he may have reasoned that 
the oracle ought to be interpreted in view of the fact, to him well 
established by his own observation, that God was accepting Gentiles 
on the basis of faith without works of law in general or circumcision in 
particular. This consideration doubtless had great weight with him, 

i 62 


and was probably the decisive one. It must be remembered, of course, 
that he is not so much proving by original argument that his doctrine 
is sustained by scripture as refuting the argument of his opponents 
that the scripture sustains their view. 

9 , &crT€ ol €K Triarem evXoyovvraL ahv mcrr^ *A/ 3 pad/M, 
"‘So that the men of faith are blessed with the faithful (believ- 
ing) Abraham.’^ A definite statement of what Paul wishes to 
prove by his previous argument. The emphasis is on ot e/c 
•TrLcrreo)^^ as against ot 7 repireTiirjfxivo(., or ot epyw vofxoVj of 
whom the judaisers afiirmed that they only could inherit the 
blessings of the promise made to Abraham. That he here says 
“blessed with . . . Abraham’^ instead of “justified^’ is doubt- 
less due to the fact that he is still using the language of his 
opponents. Note the similarity of this verse to v.^ and com- 
pare notes on that v. “Blessed with Abraham is clearly 
equivalent to “sons of Abraham.^’ By the addition of the 
word TTiaTcp (cj. Jub. 17^® 19®’®) the apostle reminds his read- 
ers that the important thing about Abraham is the fact of 
his faith. No undue stress must be laid on the use of cfvv 
instead of the of the quotation. It may have been his oppo- 
nents’ form of expression; but it was, in any case, congenial 
to his own thought. It is his constant contention that they 
who inherit the blessing promised to Abraham must do so on 
the same basis on which he was blessed, viz., faith, and in that 
sense “with” him. A reference to the fact that all who should 
afterwards exercise faith were in the blessing of Abraham pro- 
leptically blessed, evXofyovvrac being in that case a historical 
present, is less probable because evXoy. seems obviously to refer 
to the same fact as ipevXoy. of the quotation, and because to 
express this thought unambiguously would have required an 

The adjective is manifestly to be taken m its active sense, as 
is required by Ixfaxsuaev of v. «. See Th. v, 2 and esp. Eph. The 
EngKsh word "‘believing*' would more exactly express its meaning, 
but would obscure the relation between this word and lx •Klaxuttx;^ 
The translation, “Those that believe are blessed with believing Abra- 
ham,** is in some respects better but does not do full justice to ol lx 
See note on v.^ 

ni, 8-10 


3. Counter-^argument that those whose standing is fixed 
by works of law are by the logic of the legalists under 
a curse, the curse of the law; yet that their logic is 
perverse, for 0. T, teaches that men are justified by 
faith, and from the curse of the law Christ redeemed 
us when he died on the cross 

The apostle now carries his attack directly into the camp 
of the enemy, contending on the basis of passages from Deut. 
and Lev. that those who claim on the basis of scripture that 
justification is by law must on the same basis admit that the 
actual sentence of law is one of condemnation; but maintaining 
that their contention is unjustified, since the scripture itself 
affirms that the righteous man shall live by faith, and declar- 
ing that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, in order 
that on the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham (not 
by law but by faith). 

^^For as many as are of works of law are under a curse. For it 
is written, Cursed is every one that conUrmeth not in all the things 
that are written in the book of the law to do themJ^ ^^And that no 
man is justified in law before God, is evident, because, ^^The 
righteous man shall live by faith ’V ^Hnd the law is not of faith; but, 
that doeth them shall live in theml^ ^^Christ delivered us 
from the curse of the law, becoming a curse for us, because it is 
written, Cursed is avery one that hangeth on a tree Hhat upon 
the Gentiles might come the blessing of Abraham in Jesus Christ; 
that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 

10 . ^OcTOL y&p epycov vopbov elalv vtto Kardpav eiafv^ 
‘^For as many as are of works of law are under a curse.’^ By 
this sentence the apostle introduces a new weapon for the refu- 
tation of his opponents, an argument e contrario by which he 
seeks to prove that instead of men being blessed by coming 
under law they must, according to their own premises, come 
under a curse. There might have been prefixed to it the words 
of 4*^: ^^Tell me, ye that desire to be under law, do ye not hear 
the law?’’ The word v 6 p.ov is, as always in the phrase 
v 6 pu>v, used in its legalistic sense (see on 2^®), and 



epYCiJj' v 6 (ijov are not ot iroirjral vojxov, of whom Paul says in 
Rom. 2^ that they will be justified, but men whose standing 
and character proceed from {etc) works of legalistic obedience 
to statutes, utto /cardpav is a qualitative phrase, equivalent to 
[h-i\KaTdpaTo<;. While this sentence undoubtedly represents 
the apostle’s real conviction, in the sense that a man who has 
only works of law and not faith to commend him to God will 
actually fail of the divine approval (cf. 2‘«), yet it is most im- 
portant for the purposes of its interpretation to notice that 
this is not what it is intended to affirm, but rather that the 
principle of legalism (which he contends is not the basis of 
God’s actual judgment of men) leads logically to universal con- 
demnation, by bringing all under the condemnation of the law. 
This appears clearly from the fact that the sentence by which 
he supports the assertion (see below) is one which does not 
express the apostle’s own conviction as to the basis of God’s 
judgment of men, but the verdict of the law. The curse of 
which the verse speaks is not the curse of God, but as Paul 
expressly calls it in v.“, the curse of the law. 

yeypaTrrcu ^hp on ‘^’lEt7rucaTdpaT0<; Trofs 89 ovk ep-pdvet 
irdcnv tow y€^pafifidpoi<; iv /Qr/SXt^ tov vopav rov Trotfiacti 
aird” “For it is written. Cursed is every one that continueth 
not in all the things that are written in the book of the law to 
do them.” The quotation is from Deut. 27®*, with variations 
that do not materially affect the sense, viz., the omission of 
av 6 pomo<; after wa9, and of ev (which, however, many Western 
and Syrian authorities insert) before ttdtnv and the substitution 
of yeypappevoK ev tov vop^ov for Xdyois rov vdfwv 

TouTov, and of avrd for avrovs. The unexpressed premise of 
the argument, necessary to make this passage prove the pre- 
ceding proposition, is that no one does, in fact, continue in all 
the things that are written in the book of the law to do them. 
This is not quite identical with the expressed proposition of 
Rom. 3*, this being a legalistic, that an ethical, affirmation; 
but the failure which the apostle here assumes may neverthe- 
less be precisely in the moral requirements of the law. 

It is of capital importance for the understanding of the apoa- 

m, lo-ii 


tie’s argument to observe that the sentence which he here 
quotes does not at all express his own conception of the basis 
of God’s judgment, but a verdict of law. This sentence, though 
stated negatively, implies the corresponding affirmative, viz., 
that he who faithfully performs all the things written in the 
book of the law lives thereby, and this is actually so stated as 
the principle of law in v.^^. doeth them shall live 

in them.” That this is the principle of God’s action towards 
men, Paul expressly denies both directly and indirectly: directly 
in the immediately following v., as also before in 2^®; indirectly 
in that he declares in vv. that the principle of faith estab- 
lished under Abraham was not displaced by the subsequent 
incoming of law, law having for its function not to justify 
men, but to increase transgression. It is necessary, therefore, 
throughout the passage, to distinguish between the verdicts of 
law and the judgments of God, and to recognise that the former 
are, for Paul, not judgments which reflect God’s attitude now or 
at any time or under any circumstances, but those which the 
legalist must, to his own undoing, recognise as those of the law 
interpreted as he interprets it, and which on the basis of his 
legalism he must impute to God. Those that are of works of 
law are under the curse of the law, which falls on all who do 
not fully satisfy its requirements. This being so, Paul argues, 
the assumption of the legalist that the law is the basis of the 
divine judgment involves the conclusion that all men are ac- 
cursed, and must be false. On the harmony of this position 
with the apostle’s belief that the law is of God, see in detached 
note on No/i09, pp. 451 J*., and comment on v. below. 

11 , Stc Si ip vofjL^ ovSeh Sc/caiovrac *iraph SfjXop^ 

“And that no one is justified in law before God is evident.” 
S^ introduces an additional argument for the position main- 
tained in v,^®. vopxp is manifestly in the legalistic sense; on the 
force of iv^stt on 2^'^, Traph rep 0 €^ is a most significant element 
of the sentence. By it the apostle makes clear that as over 
against the verdict of law set forth in the preceding sentence 
he is now speaking of the actual attitude of God. Cf. notes 
on v.^®. 



That the clause preceding SrjXov is the subject of the propo- 
sition BrjX^v i<TTi, and the following clause the proof of it, 
rather than the reverse, which is grammatically possible, is 
proved by the fact that the following clause is a quotation from 
O. T., and, therefore, valuable for proof of the apostle’s as- 
sertion while not itself requiring to be proved. 

on “ 'O BOcauK ix -ir{aTe(^<s “because. The righteous 

man shall live by faith.” On the use of Sri, see on on . . . 
BrjXov above. In the quotation from Hab. the apostle finds 
an affirmation of his own doctrine of justification by faith. 
The particular sense which the words bore for Paul and which 
he intended them to convey to his readers is undoubtedly to 
be determined rather by Pauline usage in general, and by the 
part which the sentence plays in the apostle’s argument, than 
by the meaning which the original Heb. had for the prophet. 
By these considerations o Si/eaio? is shown to be a forensic 
rather than an ethical term, the man approved of God, rather 
than the morally righteous; 'rtCcnew bears its usual active 
sense, required by the context, “faith.” ^n<^€Tai, “shall live,” 
refers either to the obtaining of eternal life (cf. Rom. “) 

as the highest good and goal to which justification looks, or, by 
metonymy, to justification itself. It is justification, in any 
case, ^t is chiefly in mind. Cf. the other instances of quota- 
tion from O. T., in which the word occurs (v.“ Rom. i” io‘). 
The terms BOcauK and ^‘^aerai thus combine to express the 
idea of divine approval, and the sentence in effect means, “ It 
is by faith thaj; he who is approved of God is approved (and 
saved).” Cf. Rom. i^’’, where the same passage is quoted and 
the context requires the same meaning. On the relation of 
this meaning to the original sense of Hab. 2\ see below. 

For defence of the view that refers to “life,” but, as always 

when Paul speaks of life, to physical life, see Eiabisdi, Eschaiohgie des 
Pauhts, pp. S 2 f. 

The Hebrew of Hab. 2 * reads: :unj Wjwmi The Lxx read: & 

8k 8(xaioc kx TricrreiSc p.ou signifies “faithfulness,” “stead- 

fastness,” “integrity." The prophet confronted by the apparent 
triumph of the wicked Babylonian nation over Israd affirms his con- 

in, II-I2 167 

viction that in the end righteous Israel will for her steadfastness 
prosper. The use of the passage with the active sense of x(a'ct<; in- 
volves no radical perversion of its meaning, since faith in this sense 
might easily be conceived to be an ingredient or basis of faithfulness. 
Yet there is no definite evidence that Paul arrived at the active 
meaning by such an inferential process. It is, perhaps, quite as 
likely that he took the passage at what was for him the face value of 
the Lxx translation. 

12. 0 Se ^o/xo9 ov/c earcv e/c Triarem, '^and the law is not 
of faith. That is, the principles of legalism and of faith are 
mutually exclusive as bases of justification. It would have 
been formally more exact to have used 0 v 6 fio<; and TTiirw or 
€py(i)P vofMov and e/c 7 r{ar€ 0 )^, But with essential clearness 
the apostle employs in the predicate the prepositional phrase 
that was the watchword of the one doctrine, though for the 
other he had used in the subject a nominative in preference 
to the grammatically harsh prepositional expression. By this 
assertion the apostle excludes the thought of compromise be- 
tween the two principles. Faith is one thing, legalism another, 
and as bases of justification they can not be combined. No 
doubt there were those who sought to combine them, admitting 
that justification was by faith, but claiming that obedience to 
law was nevertheless requisite to salvation; as a modern Chris- 
tian will affirm that religion is wholly a spiritual matter, yet 
feel that he is surer of salvation if he has been baptised. 

a\X TroLTjaa^i avrh ip avrol^J^ ‘‘but, He that 

doeth them shall live in them.^’ The aXKd marks the antithesis 
between this statement of O. T. (Lev. 18®), which the apostle 
takes as a statement of the principle of legalism, and the possi- 
bility just denied that this principle and that of faith might 
somehow be reconciled or reduced to one. One must mentally 
supply after iOOC “the law says.” Thus to the principle of 
legalism stated in its negative form in v.^^ and set over against 
the quotation from Habakkuk with its affirmation of the prin- 
ciple of faith, the apostle adds an assertion of the principle of 
legalism in its positive form, also taken like that in v.^^ from 
O* T. On the point of view from which the apostle thus quotes 



0. T. for both doctrines, see on and more fully in tine print 

13 * X/ 340 -T 09 Tfiiw; i^Tjyopaarev ix tt )? Kardpm rod vofiov 
'^Christ delivered us from the curse of the law.” ^^The curse 
of the law” here spoken of can consistently with the context 
be none other than that which is spoken of in v.^®, viz., the 
curse which the legalistic passages of O. T. pronounce on those 
who do not perfectly obey its statutes. As pointed out above 
on v.^o^ this is not the judgment of God. To^miss this fact is 
wholly to misunderstand Paul. But if the curse is not an 
expression of God's attitude towards men, neither is the deliver- 
ance from it a judicial act in the sense of release from penalty, 
but a release from a false conception of God's attitude, viz., 
from the belief that God actually deals with men on a legalistic 
basis. The work here ascribed to Christ is, therefore, of the 
same nature as that spoken of in Rom. 32^®-, and there said to 
be accomplished by Christ in his death, viz., a revelation of the 
way of achieving acceptance with God, a demonstration of 
the divine character and attitude towards men. 

The verb kictyog&X>(i>, foimd in late writers only from the Lxx 
(Dan. 2« only) down, is used in two senses: (i) to buy up,” or, figurative- 
ly, “ to secure” (by adroitness) : Diod. Sic. 36. 2»; and (2) “ to redeem, to 
deliver at cost of some sort to the deliverer.” The middle occurs once 
in Eph. and once in Col. in the former sense in the phrase e?ce'yopcii;gcr9c3K 
'zhy xatp6v. The active occurs in the same sense in Dan. 2«. The 
active is found in the second sense in Gal. 4®, Yva ro6<; £nc6 v6pou 
i^ayopdarj- The meaning here is evidently the same as in 4®, “ to de- 
liver, to secure release for one,” probably with the implication conveyed 
in the etymological sense of the word (the simple verb means 

“to buy,” and is frequently used in this sense in the Lxx) that such de- 
liverance involves cost of some kind (effort, suffering, or loss) to turn 
who effects it. The question to whom the price is paid is irrelevant, 
unless demanded by the context, intruding into later usage of the word 
an idea left behind in its earlier development. 

It requires no argument to show that in the phrase lx -die; mTdpa<; 
Tou v6y.ou the apostle has in mind some phase, aspect, or conception 
of the law of God, not civil law or law in an indusive sense of the 
word. It has been maintained above that he refers to law legalisti- 
cally understood, and to deliverance from the curse which God is 
falsely supposed to pronounce upon men on the basis of such a law. 

m, 12, 13 169 

In support of this interpretation and against the view, that the law here 
spoken of is law in any other sense of the word (see detached note on 
N6pi.og, esp. V 2 a, b, c, d), or that the deliverance is the forgiveness of 
the individual, are the following considerations. 

(a) Throughout this passage Paul is speaking of law legalistically 

understood, law as a body of statutes for failure to obey any of which 
men are under a curse. This is especially clear in v.). In 

the phrase xardtpa roG v6p.ou itself there is, indeed, no insuperable 
obstacle to taking v6ti,05 in the abstract-historical sense (cf, Rom. 2^*, 
and detached note on N6^oc; V 2 b), and understanding by it the con- 
demnation which God actually pronounces upon those who not simply 
fall short of perfect obedience to the statutes of the law, but hold down 
the truth in iniquity (Rom. i^®), who disobey the truth and obey 
iniquity (2®), who though they may be hearers of the law are not doers 
of it (2*®). xotT&pa would in that case represent substantially the idea 
expressed by fiprfi in Rom. 2®, to which it is practically equivalent. 
Nor is an abrupt change to law in another sense in itself impossible. 
It might easily occur if the change of sense were made evident, as it is 
in Rom. 3« and in various other passages, or if the argument were 
such and the two meanings so related that the logic of the passage 
would be but little affected, whether the meaning be retained or 
changed, as in Rom. 212* «. But in the present passage these condi- 
tions do not exist. The continuity and validity of the argument 
depend on the word in the present verse meaning the same as in the 
preceding verses. Indeed, there is no place in the whole chapter for 
a change in the meaning or reference of the word v6[ioc. Yet, it must 
also be recognised that the law of which the apostle speaks is not legal- 
ism in the abstract, but a concrete historical reality. It came four 
hundred and thirty years after Moses (v.^Oj its fundamental principle 
is expressed in a definite passage of O. T. (v.^o). 

(b) The tense of the verb i^'fiy6g<x(jey is itself an argument for tak- 

ing the deliverance referred to not as an often repeated individual 
experience but as an epochal event. But there are other more decisive 
considerations. Thus (i) it is achieved by Christ on the cross; (ii) its 
primary effect is in relation to the Jews; for the use of the article with 
v6tJi.ou in V. 1®, excluding a qualitative use of the noun, and the antithesis 
of in v. « to Bvt} in v. necessitate referring the former pri- 
manly to the Jews; and (iii) the purpose of the redemptive act is to 
achieve a certain result affecting the Gentiles as a class. These facts 
combine to indicate that the apostle is speaking not, e. g., of the for- 
giveness of the individual, his release from the penalty of his sins, but 
of a result once for all achieved in the death of Christ on the cross. 
It is, therefore, of the nature of the (i7CoXGTpcaat<; of Rom. 3** rather 
than of the of i Pet. i«. 



But the fact that the deliverance is an epochal event'confirms our judg- 
ment that it is law in a legalistic sense that is here referred to. Con- 
demnation for failure to fulfil law in the ethical sense is not abol- 
ished by the death of Christ. C/. chap, Rom. 2^-^^ Nor 
can the reference be to the law as a historic regime, the Mosaic system 
as such. For though Rom. 10^ might be interpreted as meaning that 
Christ is the end of the law in this sense, and though the apostle un- 
doubtedly held that those who believe in Christ are not under obliga- 
tion to keep the statutes of the Law of Moses as such, yet (i) release 
from obligation to obey statutes is not naturally spoken of as release 
from the curse of the law, and (ii) the idea of the abolition of statutes 
is foreign to this context. It remains, therefore, to take the term in 
its legalistic sense, yet as referring to an actual historically existent 

Yet the release from the curse of the law can not be the abolition of 
legalism in the sense that the divine government before Christ having 
been on a legalistic basis is henceforth of a different character. Against 
any interpretation that makes the curse of the law a divine condem- 
nation of men on grounds of legalism, in force from Moses to Christ, 
it is a decisive objection that the apostle both elsewhere and in this 
very chapter insists that God had never so dealt with men, but that 
the principle of faith established before law was not set aside by it 
(see esp. v.^O- 

Neither can we suppose that Paul, though admitting that legalism 
had historic existence in the O. T. period and concrete expression in 
0 . T., denied to it all value and authority, as if, e. g., it were a work of 
the devil. For he elsewhere declares that the law is holy and righteous 
and good (Rom. 71®) and in this chap, (w.^*^-) implies that it had its 
legitimate divinely appointed function. Exalting the older principle 
of faith above the later law, the apostle yet sees value and legitimacy 
in both. 

The only explanation that meets these conditions is that in the his- 
toric legalism of 0 . T. Paul saw a real but not an adequate disclosure 
of the divine thought and will, one which when taken by itself and 
assumed to be complete gave a false notion of God's attitude towards 

The curse of the law is the verdict of a reality, of the law isolated 
from the rest of the 0 . T. revelation- But so isolated it expressed, 
according to Paul, not the truth but a fraction of it; for the law, he held, 
was never ^ven full possession of the field, never set aside the pre- 
viously revealed principle of faith (3^’'). Its function was never that 
of determinittg the standing of men with God. The curse of the law 
was, therefore, an actual curse in the sense that it expressed the ver- 
dict of legalism, but not in the sense that he on whom it fell was ac- 

m, 13 i7t 

cursed of God. It was a disclosure of the status of a man on a basis 
of merit estimated by actual achievement, not of God's attitude towards 
him. The latter, Paul maintained, was determined by other than 
legalistic considerations, by his faith (v.*), by his aspiration, his striv- 
ing, the fundamental character of his life and conduct (Rom. 2 «"» 0 * 
But if this is the meaning of the phrase, “the curse of the law," and 
if deliverance from it was an epochal event accomplished by the death 
of Christ on the cross, it must have been achieved through the reve- 
latory value of the event, by that which God through that event 
revealed; and this either in the sense that God thereby announced the 
end of that system of legalism which in the time of Moses came in to 
achieve a temporary purpose, or in that he thereby revealed his own 
attitude towards men, and so gave evidence that legalism never was 
the basis of his judgment of men. It is the first of these thoughts that 
Paul has apparently expressed in Rom. lo-*, and it is not impossible 
here. Yet it is more consonant both with the fact that Paul speaks 
of deliverance from the curse of the law rather than from the law, and 
with what follows (see below on . . . xa-rdpa, etc.) to sup- 

pose that, as in Rom. 5», he is speaking of a disclosure of the un- 
changed and unchangeable attitude of God. 

If, indeed, and in so far as the law is thought of as brought to an 
end, it is probably in the sense that this results from the revelation 
of God's character rather than by anything like a decree in terms abolish- 
ing it. This is also not improbably the thought that underlies Rom. 10*. 

^ev 6 jievo^ mrep Karcipa^ becoming a curse for 
/cardpa^ literally “a curse,” “an execration,” “an expression or 
sentence of reprobation'' (as in the preceding clause and 
is evidently here used by metonymy, since a person can not 
become a curse in a literal sense. Such metonymy is common 
in Paul Cf. the use of Treptro/A^ for the circumcised, and 
d/cpQ^varCa for Gentiles in ^ and Rom. 3^0. Cf. also i Cor. 
“who became wisdom to us from God, and righteousness and 
sanctification and redemption”; but esp. 2 Cor. 5^1 : “Him who 
knew no sin he made to be sin on our behalf (wrkp that 

we might become righteousness of God in him.” As there 
dpaprCa stands in a sense for dpdprcoXo^ and Bcfcmocrvpi] for 
B{Kaco<;, so doubtless here fcardpa stands for [emJ/carapaTO? 
as the immrdparo^ in the following quotation also suggests. 
More important is the fact, which the close connection with the 
phrase ifc 77J9 Kardpa^ rov vdpov indicates, that fcardpa here 



refers to a curse of the law, which, as we have seen above, is not 
to be understood as a curse of God. yepofjsvo^f is probably a 
participle of means, the whole phrase expressing the method 
by which Christ redeemed us from the curse. vTrep f)pS)v 
means '^on our behalf/^ It can not be pressed to mean ^‘in our 
place {avTi). See further on virep r&v dfiapri&v 
Precisely in what sense and how Christ came under the curse 
of the law, and how this availed to deliver us from that curse, 
must appear from a consideration of the quotation by which 
Paul supports his affirmation. 

The following are conceivable meanings of the phrase 
. . . xairApa, taken by itself: (i) Christ became a curse in that he was 
the object of divine reprobation, personally an object of divine dis- 
approval. (2) He became the actual object of divine reprobation 
vicariously, enduring the penalty of others’ sins. (3) He experienced 
in himself God’s wrath against sinners, not as himself the object of 
divine wrath, but vicariously and by reason of his relation to men, 
(4) He was the object of human execration — cursed by men. In this 
case Yev6p.evo^ would be a participle not of means, but of accompany- 
ing circumstance, the phrase suggesting the cost at which Jesus re- 
deemed us from the curse of the law. How he did so would be left 
entirely unsaid. (5) He fell under the curse of the law, not of God or 
of men. The first of these five interpretations is easily excluded by its 
utter contrariety to Paul’s thought about God’s attitude towards Christ 
and the righteousness of his judgments. The second, though often 
afSrmed, is not sustained by any unambiguous language of the apostle. 
The third is probably quite consistent with the apostle’s thought. As 
in 2 Cor. 5*^ he says that “him who knew no sin he made to be sin 
for us, that we might become righteousness of God in him,” not mean- 
ing that Christ actually became sinful, but that by reason of his rela- 
tion to men he experienced in himself the consequences of sin, so by 
this language he might mean that Jesus by reason of his sympathetic 
relation with men experienced in himself the curse of God upon men for 
their sin. But there is no expression of this thought in the context, 
and it is, on the whole, inharmonious with the meaning of the word 
yjxT&gcc throughout the passage. The fourth is equally possible in 
itself, but, like all the preceding, is open to the objection that it does 
not, as the context suggests, make the curse that of the law. The 
fifth, though without support in any other passage of the apostle’s 
writings, is most consonant with the context, if not actually required 
by it. 


in, 13 

OTL yeypawraty ‘^'Em/cardparo^ '7rd<; 6 Kpe/mdpevof; iirl ^vXoVj^’ 
“because it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a 
tree.’^ The quotation, from Deut. 21^3, is introduced to sup- 
port the statement that Christ became a curse, not that he 
thereby “delivered us from the curse of the law,” or that it 
was “for us.” The original passage refers to the body of a 
criminal which, after the man had been put to death, was 
hanged upon a tree. In such a case it is said, “Thou shaJt 
surely bury him the same day; for he that is hanged is the 
curse of God, that thou defile not thy land which the Lord thy 
God giveth thee for an inheritance.” Between this passage 
and the fact of which the apostle is speaking there seems to 
be only a superficial connection. On the question whether the 
apostle found a more real connection, see below. 

Deut. 21^^ which in the Lxx reads S-ct x6x.aT7)paiJL£vo? Sxb BeoO -rcac 
xpeiid^evo? i%\ ?6Xou, may be supposed to furnish support to Paul’s 
previous statement that Christ became a curse for us in several ways; 
(i) xardpa being understood to have any of the first three 

meanings suggested above, the 0 , T. passage may be quoted purely 
for its verbal resemblance to the assertion which the apostle has made; 
there is manifestly nothing in its real meaning to support the assertion 
that Christ, who died not for his own sins but as an innocent man, 
came in any sense under the curse of God, Its use for this purpose 
would be verbalism pure and simple. (2) If Yev6pLevo(; xaxdpa be 
supposed to refer to the reprobation of men, the passage may be used 
to explain that reprobation, men naturally looking upon one who died 
the death of a criminal as actually such and under the curse of God. 
(3) If xardepa refers to the curse of the law, then the quotation may be 
understood to define precisely how and in what sense he became a 
curse of the law. Inasmuch as the law affirms that whoever is hanged 
on a tree is accursed, and Jesus died on the cross, he falls under this 
verdict and the curse of the law. But inasmuch as this verdict is 
manifestly false and monstrous, in it the law does not so much con- 
demn Christ as itself, and thereby, since false in one it may be so in 
all, it emancipates us from the fear of its curse. Or, (4) , with somewhat 
less of literalism may be supposed to refer to the curse of the 

law, the 0 . T. quotation, however, being cited not solely with refer- 
ence to the fact of hanging on the tree, but to all that the crucifixion 
represents. Law and he who takes his stand on law, must say that 
Christ, having died on the cross, is a sinner — i. a., that under law no 
one could come to such a death who was not himself guilty of sin — as 


vividly the law says in the words of the quotation. But in that verdict 
of legalism it condemns itself, and in the fact that Christ the righteous 
died the death of the cross it is evident that the government of God is 
not one of legalism, but of love and of vicarious suffering, the righteous 
for the wicked. 

Of these various interpretations the last two alone comport with the 
fact that it is the curse of the law of which Paul is speaking throughout 
the passage, and the last is preferable because more consonant with 
the fact that for Paul generally the cross signifies not the outward fact 
that Jesus died by crucifixion or on a tree, but all that the fact stood 
for as a revelation of God and the principles of his dealings with men. 
See I Cor. So xmderstood, the quotation serves the same 

purpose as those in vv.^®* i*, viz., to show the impossible position in 
which the logic of legalism lands its advocates. The argument is 
akin, also, to that of 2^^ in that it uses the fact of the death of Christ to 
refute the legalist, Paul there sa3dng that legalism makes that death 
needless, here that it proves Christ accursed. The omission of 6xb 6eoij 
is probably due, as Ltft. suggests, to a shrinking of the apostle from 
the suggestion that Christ was the object of God’s reprobation. 

If both the latter interpretations be rejected because it seems impos- 
sible that under these words there lies so much thought not directly 
expressed (though this objection will hold against any interpretation 
that seeks to ascertain the real thought of the apostle) our choice of a 
substitute would probably be among the following combinations of 
views already separately objected to: (i) The curse of the law may be 
supposed to be a real curse, the death on the cross a penal expiation of 
it, and the O. T. passage a proof of its penal character. The serious 
objection to this interpretation is not that the 0 . T. passage is related 
to the fact which it is supposed to sustain in a purely verbal and 
external way, for in view of and 4*^ (on which, however, see the 
possibility that these are early scribal glosses) it can not be assumed 
that Paul was incapable of such a use of scripture, but that in making 
the curse of the law a real curse (of God) this interpretation makes the 
apostle directly contradict the very proposition which he is maintain- 
ing in this chapter, viz., that men are not judged by God on a basis of 
legalism. Or (2) we may suppose that the phrase '*the curse of the 
law” bears the meaning required by the context, but that after the 
first clause of v,« the apostle abandons thought for words, and seeks 
to substantiate his assertion that Christ redeemed us from the curse 
of the law by affirming that Christ took upon him the curse of our 
sin, and that he sustains this statement by an O. T. passage which 
supports it in sound but not in sense. As in the preceding case, the 
real difficulty of the interpretation lies in the method of reasoning 
which it imputes to Paul. Having in Xpicrr^c • . . v6(i.ou affirmed 

in, 13-14 175 

our release from the curse of the law, according to this interpretation 
he substantiates this statement by affirming that Christ became a 
curse in a quite different sense of the words, and one really remote 
from the context. That the scripture that he quotes supports this 
statement only in appearance is a secondary matter. It remains to 
consider as a final possibility (3) the view that the apostle follows 
up his affirmation that Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, 
not with proof or explanation, but with a statement intended to sug~ 
gest the cost at which he achieved the deliverance of men from the 
curse of the law, Yev6^evo^ . . . xat&pa, referring to the reprobation 
of Christ by men. C/. Heb. 12^; see (4) on p. 172. The 0 . T. 
passage then explains why the death on the cross led men to look on 
him with reprobation as one accursed. To this interpretation the 
only serious objection is that the transition from the idea “cursed by 
the law*’ to “cursed by men” is expressed only negatively, and it 
would seem inadequately, by the absence of any limiting phrase after 
xai:<fepa; the omission of the Oicb 0eou of the Lxx naturally implies the 
carrying forward of a reference to the law. In order of probability 
this view stands next after the fourth in the preceding list. 

The choice between interpretations must be made, not on the ground 
that one does and the other does not supply unexpressed elements of 
thought, or that one does and the other does not take O. T. scripture 
in its historic sense, but on the answer to the question whether it is more 
consistent with the apostle’s usual methods of thinking to argue illogi- 
cally, dealing in words rather than thoughts, or to express reasonably 
consistent thought in brief and obscure language. 

14 . ek ra Wvrj fj evXoyia rod ^K^pacLfi yevijrai iv 
*lr)<xov “that upon the Gentiles might come the bless- 

ing of Abraham in Jesus Christ.^’ In this clause and the fol- 
lowing one the apostle states the purpose not of any of the sub- 
ordinate elements of v.^^, but of the whole fact, especially the 
principal element, . . . rov yd/wv. By y evKo^fla 

rod *A 0 pad/jL must be understood, in the light of w.®* the bless- 
ing of justification by faith, which, according to Paul’s inter- 
pretation of Gen. 12® (cf. Gen. 28^), was promised beforehand 
to the Gentiles, and which they shared with him. This blessing 
came to the Gentiles in Jesus Christ in that it was through him 
that the purpose of God to accept men by faith was revealed, 
and that through faith In him they enter into actual participa- 
tion in the blessing. 



€?<; is probably to be taken as marking its object as the destination 
of a movement. Cf. i Thes. i®. In Iv TtjcioO XptaT<^ the preposition 
is doubtless used in its basal sense; cf, on 
’Ev Xpiax^ is the reading of Syr. (psh.) Aeth., most 

authorities reading ev X. T. The facts stated in the textual note on 
with reference to the tendency of the mss., together with the high 
authority of HB, leave no room for doubt that ev Xpiar^ TijoroO is a 
corruption due to assimilation of the text to the usual form. Cf, the 
other instances of HB and secondary authorities against the other 
uncials in “ 4“* ** 5“ 6^®. 

ipa Tf)V iTrayyeXiav rov Trvev/iarof; \d^o)/J£V Sid TricrrGm. 
^‘that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith.” rr]V iTrayyeXiav tov TrvevfjLaTO^ is a metonymic phrase 
meaning the promised Spirit. Cf, Lk. 24^® Acts 26® Heb. 
91® and especially Acts 2^^, See also the similar cases of ikirk 
meaning ^^that which is hoped for,” chap. 5® Col. i®. This sec- 
ond tVa-clause is probably to be taken, not as dependent on 
the first, but as co-ordinate with it, and the implied subject 
'^/jL€i<; as referring to Christians as such, rather than to be- 
lieving Jews, as is probably the case in v.^^; for it is difficult 
to see how the reception of the Spirit by the Jews could be 
conditioned upon the Gentiles obtaining the blessing of Abra- 
ham ; and if the two clauses referred to Gentiles and Jews re- 
spectively this antithesis would probably have been indicated 
by an expressed in the second clause. Obviously the 
latter can not refer to the Gentiles only. Christ’s redemption 
of us from the curse of the law had then as co-ordinate ends 
the opening of the door of faith and justification through faith 
apart from works of law, to the Gentile, and the bestowment 
of the promised Spirit on those that have faith. The adapta- 
tion of means to end as respects this second clause seems ob- 
viously to lie in the fact that the redemption of men from the 
curse of the law by their enlightenment as to God’s true at- 
titude to them carries with it the revelation of faith as the 
means by which men become acceptable to God, and that 
through such faith they receive the Spirit. Cf. v.^; also vv.^^-^s 
and 4®. These final clauses, therefore, with their double state- 
ment of the purpose of Christ’s redemptive work, confirm the 

Ill, 14-15 


conclusion already reached that the redemption from the curse 
of the law was an epochal event, having its significance and its 
redemptive power in the revelation which it conveys of the true 
attitude of God towards men. 

Whether in speaking of the promise of the Spirit the apostle has in 
mind the prophecy of Joel. 2“ Ezek. 36*^ or, being acquainted with 
the tradition underlying Acts i®, refers to a promise of Jesus can not 
be stated with certainty. It is possible that the second final clause 
is to be taken as, to this extent, epexegetic of the first that the Holy 
Spirit is a definition of the blessing of Abraham. In that case the 
apostle refers to the promise to Abraham and has learned to interpret 
this as having reference to the gift of the Spirit. This possibility is 
in a measure favoured by the use of i%ix'^^ek((x in vv. of the promise 

to Abraham. 

4. Argument from the irr&oocableness of a covenant and 
the priority of the covenant made with Abraham to 
the lawy to the effect that the covenant is still in force 


Drawing his argument from the common knowledge of men 
that contracts once agreed to can not be modified (except by 
mutual consent), the apostle applies this thought to the cov- 
enant with Abraham, contending that the law coming cen- 
turies afterwards can not modify it. 

^^Brethren, I speak from the point of view of men. Though it 
be man^s, yet a covenant once established no one annuls or adds 
to. (}^Nom to Abraham were the promises spoken, and to his 
seed.^^ He saith not, And to the seeds f* as of many, hut as of 
one, ^‘And to ihy seedf^ which is Christ.) ^'^Now this I mean: 
A covenant previously established by God, the law, which came four 
hundred and thirty years afterwards, does not anmd so as to make 
inoperative the promise. ^^For if the inheritance is of law, it is 
no longer of promise; but to Abraham God granted it by promise. 

16. Kard dp6po)7rop\^o>. ‘‘Brethren, I speak from 

the point of view of men.” On the use of aScX<^ot, see on i*. 
Its use here is probably due to the apostle's feeling that he is 
now addressing the Galatians more directly than in the preced- 
ing paragraph, in which he was really spewing to the judaisers 



whose argument he was refuting, and to his desire to secure 
their friendly attention. On /car^ avOpcPTrov, see on The 
regular meaning of the phrase after a verb is, ^^as men do/^ the 
specific point of resemblance being indicated in the context. 
Here this general meaning naturally becomes, ''I speak as men 
do about their affairs’’ {cf. i Cor. 9^), i. e., draw an illustra- 
tion from common human practice.” A reference to human 
authority such as is suggested in i Cor. 9^ is improbable here, 
both because there is no suggestion of it in the context and 
because the depreciation of the value of the argument which 
such a reference would imply is uncalled for and without value 
for the apostle’s purpose. 

0/40)9 avBpayTTOV fceKvp(s)fJLevr}v BiaO'qfCTjv ovSeh aderel ^ 
iTTtBtardcrcreTaL. “Though it be man’s, yet a covenant once 
established no one annuls or adds to.” Of the force of o/xo )9 
two views are possible: (i) It may mark an antithesis between 
Kara avOpoyirov Xeyo: and what follows. In this c^,se, since 
ap 0 p< 07 roVj etc., is not directly adversative to fcard, .... 
the second member of the antithesis must be supposed to be 
suggested by, rather than expressed in, the words that follow; 
most probably by the whole argument of vv. The 

thought will then be, “Though I speak from the point of view 
of men’s affairs, yet what may be so said is not without force: 
a man’s ratified covenant,” etc. (So substantially Riick. 
Olsh., cited by Wies.) (2) The antithesis may be between 
avdpa> 7 rov > a,iid what follows. This involves a trajection by 
which 0/40)9 stands not in its natural place before the second 
member of the antithesis, but before the first. C/. i Cor. 14^^: 
if/ 4 Ci )9 OApvxcX' BiBByra . . . ehv BiaardX^p roZ? 

. where ^f/4co9 indicates an antithesis be- 
tween aypvxd and (fxavijv BiBovra^ or more probably between 
<f>o)vi)V Bi^B^vra and e^v BukttoXtjv . . . /4i^ Sp. With this pas- 
sage have been compared also Plat. Phaed, 91C (<f>o 0 eiTac fii) 
V 0/1C09 ml Beidrepov koX /cdXKiop Bp tov amparo^ 'irpo* 
aTToKKvrirm ip appopla^} elBei oifaa), Thuc. 7.77^, and Xen. 
Cyr. 5. (pvp S* aB oBtws m ai/p pip aol Bpop^i ml ip 

iroXepCa Bpr&; Oappovpep). Cf. WM. p. 693, Kiihner-Gerth, 

in, 15 179 

II 2, p. 85. In this case the contrast is between the 
as man-made and its irrevocability after its ratification. The 
first view has the advantage of grammatical simplicity. But 
in view of the instances of trajection, including the only other 
instance of o/uo? in Paul, and of the greater logical simplicity of 
the second view, it is probably to be preferred. iceicupoifMivTjv, 
characterising the supposed covenant as having been executed 
and hence actually in force, expresses a thought which is im- 
plied in haOi^Kriv^ but adds to the clearness of the sentence. 
It clearly belongs to the second element of the antithesis, with 
ovheh aOeret. The validation of the covenant is evidently in 
the apostle’s mind not, like avdpmirov, a fact in spite of which 
no one annuls it or adds to it, but the ground of the irrevoca- 
bility, as is implied in the re-expression of the idea in the word 
irpoK€Kvpo>ix 4 vr}V in v.^^. By BcaO'i^fcij must be understood not 
'^testament” (as Th. Cremer, Sief. Ram. Zahn, Behm, 
Lohmeyer, et dJ) nor ^'stipulation,” "arrangement,” in a sense 
broad enough to cover both will and covenant (Hauck in Th. 
SL u. Kr.^ 1862, pp. 514 jf., Segond, and Bous.), but as the usage 
of N. T. in general and of Paul in particular and the context here 
require, "covenant” in the sense of the O. T. (soMey. 
Alf. Ell. Ltft. ERV.text, ARV. Beet). C/. on v.'^^ and for 
fuller statement of the evidence, see detached note on AcaOrj/cr}^ 
pp. 496/. 

*Av6p<j)icou. The singular number of this noun furnishes no argument 
against the meaning “covenant” (a) because, as will appear below, 
the covenant as conceived of in Hebrew thought, though constituting 
a relation between two persons often proceeds from one, and (b) be- 
cause the noun is here most naturally understood as qualitative as in 
the phrase xondc < 3 ?v 6 pwxov. C/. i' St’ dtv 6 pc 5 xou and other examples 
given there. 

Kexup<i)iJt.4vT3v from xup^co, cognate with x6pto<; {cf. the adjectival Use 
in I Mac. 8*® in the sense “established”) means “validated,” “effected,” 
“executed,” referring neither to the drafting of an agreement or will 
preceding its execution nor to a confirmation which follows the actual 
execution (the latter sense though occurring is infrequent; see iEach. 
Fm. 521, and 4 Mac. 7®; Plut. Grot. vU. Lys.)t but to the execution 
itsdf, that without which it would not be in force at all. The prefix- 
ing of the participle to StaBiJxifjv, therd^ore, simply emphasises what is 



impKed in the word itself, pointing out that what is referred to is a 
^ taOi^xiQ actually in force, not simply under consideration or written out 
but not yet agreed to and therefore still subject to modification. Cf. 
Thuc. 8. 6®: fj IxxXyjafa . . . xup^aotaa 'uaQ'zoc 5ieX66T(3. Polyb. i. ii*: 
xal Tb tJLiv ffuvISptov o6S’ ek HXoq Ixiipwas TrYjv YvwpL-iliv . . . Boeckh, 
C. J. (?. 1570 a. 45. Tb tpTQ(ptqjLa Tb xupwO^v. Gen. 23^0: xa\ lxup( 50 TQ 6 dyghg 
. . . *A^pa&ii eig XT^atv -rcapa t<Sv ulcbv Xir. (Aq. uses the same 
word in Dan. 6® (Lxx): xal odrwg 6 gacicXe^*; Aape:o<; laTiQae xal 

Ix^pCDaev. Plut. AlctL 33^: Tb o 5 v t{)iQ9tffpLa zf;g xa 965 ou icpbTepov Ixe- 
x6p<i>To. See also Plut. SoL 30*; Peric. 32®; Pomp. 48®. 

ovhevi aderel ^ ein^LardcrcreraL is to be taken without 
qualification, least of all with the qualification, except the 
contractor’’ (so Schm., Encyc. Bib. II 1611; cf. Zahn, Sous. 
ad loc.). That a compact may be modified by common consent 
of both the parties to it is, of course, not denied, but simply 
assumed and ignored. But to assume that either party alone is 
excepted is to deprive the statement of all meaning. For evi- 
dence that this assertion itself shows that the SiadTjKTj avdpm- 
TTov, which Paul uses, fcard avOpo^TroVy to prove the un- 
changeableness of the Bca 6 ijjcrf of God is a covenant, not a 
will, see detached note on AiaOijKr]^ pp. 496 ff. 

^AOstIo), “to render S&eT:og’* ( = without place or standing, invalid), 
occurs from Lxx and Polybius down, signifying in respect to laws and 
the like “to disregard,” “to violate” (Polyb. 8. 2^; Mk. 7® Heb. io«), 
or “to annul,” “to abrogate” (i Mac. ii»« 2 Mac. i3«); of persons “to 
set at nought,” “to reject,” “to rebel against” (Deut. 21^* Isa. i*). 
Cf. also M. and M. Voc. s. v. “To annul” is clearly the meaning here. 

’Ext 5 t(XT 4 :aasTat furnishes the only extant instance of this word, 
but Stotdaao) is frequent both in Greek writers and N. T. in the sense 
“to arrange,” “to prescribe”; the middle occurring in Plut. in the 
sense “ to make a will,” “ to order by wiU.” The compound lictSea-dcaaoj 
evidently signifies “to make additional prescriptions” {cf. IxibcaTCOtipit, 
Dio Cass. 621* and IxtbtaGfjxiQ, “codicil,” Jos. Ant. 17. 226 (9^) and ex- 
amples dted by Norton, A Lexicographical and Historical Study cf 
AtaOi^xiQ . . . Chicago, 1908). Whether such prescriptions are contrary 
to the original compact (they of course modify it or they would not be 
added) is beside the mark; a compact once executed can not be changed. 

16 . Se *AfipahfJL ippSrjarap al hra^yeklac ^^fcal awip^ 
/zart” avrov' “Now to Abraham were the promises spoken, 
and to his seed.’ ” For the evidence that this proposition and 

m, 15-16 18 1 

the next (yM) are parenthetical, see on toSto Se 
The promises here spoken of are those which accompanied the 
covenant and which constituted it on the side of divine grace. 
On the relation of promise and covenant, see detached note 
on AmdTj/cTj, p. 497, and cf. Gen. hut esp. Gen. 17^-*. 

See also Cremer^®, p. 1062. The apostle more commonly uses 
the singular eTrayyeXia (see 29 Rom. 4^®* 20)^ 

also without marked difference of thought employs the plural 
(see V.21 and Rom. 9^), the basis for which is in the repeated 
occasions on which the promise was made to Abraham, and the 
various forms in which it was expressed. See Gen. 12^^' 

5, 18 172-8^ On Paulas definition of the content of the prom- 
ise as interpreted in the light of subsequent events, see on 
KXrjpovofila^ From a strictly grammatical point of view 

(TTr^ptiart is a dative of indirect object after epp 4 d'r)aav. 
But it is only by a rhetorical figure that the promises are said 
to be uttered to the seed. In the original passage, Gen. 13^® 
17^' ®, and in this sentence by intent the seed are included 
with Abraham in those to whom the promises are to be ful- 

ov X4yei Kal T0I9 (r^rrepixacLv^^ &>9 eirl iroXX&Vy aXX* ax: l<f} 
€v 6^ cnrepixari crov/* 09 iarcv X/ 3 tcrT</ 9 . ^'He saith 

not, And to the seeds, as of many, but as of one, And to thy 
seed, which is Christ.” The subject of X^yec to be supplied in 
thought is doubtless 6 ^€09 as implied in vtto tov Oeov (v,^^). ©9 

indicates that the following expressions refer to the point of 
view of the speaker, o ^ed?, so that it is equivalent to ‘^meaning 
this.” C/. Th. s. V. 3. OTt with the genitive in the sense ^"^in re- 
spect to,” apparently occurs here only in N. T., but is found in 
classical writers. C/. Th. 1;. A 1 . 1. e. If these words are from 
the apostle it must be supposed that for the purpose of height- 
ening the impression of the dignity and inviolability of the 
covenant and suggesting the impossibility of its having already 
received its fulfilment before the law came in, he avails him- 
self of an unusual use of airepiia in the singular as meaning, or 
applied to, an individual descendant, and founds on this fact 
an argument for referring the 0 . T. passage to Christ; yet 

i 82 


probably to him not as an individual, but as the head of a 
spiritual race; c/. the use of Israel as meaning the race of Israel, 
Rom. 9®’ but especially 9^® and t Cor. 12^®. This is, of 
course, not the meaning of the original passage referred to 
(Gen. 13^^ or if or *). But neither is there any other inter- 
pretation which will satisfy the requirements both of the Gen. 
passages and of the context here. The latter must, therefore, 
decide the apostle’s meaning; cf. on v.“. It is not probable, 
indeed, that the apostle derived the meaning of the promise 
from the use of the singular tr^rep/uaTi. He is well aware of 
the collective sense of the word a-rrepim in the Gen. passage (see 
V.®® and Rom. 4“-*®). He doubtless arrived at his thought, not 
by exegesis of scripture, but from an interpretation of history, 
and then availed himself of the singular noun to express his 
thought briefly. It should be observed that 09 earof Xpt,a-r<k 
is in any case an assertion of the apostle, for which he claims 
no evidence in O. T. beyond the fact that the promise refers 
to one person. On the possibility that the words ov yjyei . . . 
ILpurTch are the work of an early editor of the epistles of Paul, 
see end of detached note on 'Lireppari and 'Lireppaa-LV, p. 509. 

17 . TovTO A^oj* “Now this I mean.” The function of 
this phrase is to take up for further argument or explanation 
a thought already expressed. Cf. i Cor. 1“ and similar phrases 
in I Cor. 7®® 10®* 16®®. The following phrase, ZiadrjKTjv 
vpoKeKvpwp^riv imo tov deoi), shows that the reversion of 
thought here intended is to the ojuw avBp^ou KCKvpan^VTjp 
SiaO'qKrjv of v.“ V.®* is, therefore, parenthetical. 

Bia0i]Ki]p TrpOKeKvposp^vrjP vjro rov B&>v 6 perit Terpafc6<rca 
Kal rpiaKovra errj yejopm popxxi ovk aicupol, eU to Ka- 
rapyriccu Tfjv hrayyeXtav. “A covenant previously estab- 
lished by God, the law which came four hundred and thirty 
years afterwards does not annul so as to make inoperative the 
promise.” The Word hiadriKii is itself ambiguous, meaning 
either (a) “covenant,” “agreement,” or (b) “will,” “testa- 
ment.” But the here referred to is manifestly that 

spoken of in Gen., chap, ly, and this alike in the thought of the 
O. T. writer, of the Lxx translators, and of Paul was essentially 

m, 16-17 183 

a covenant. Its fulfilment lay, indeed, in part in the distant 
future, pertaining even to generations yet imborn. In it God 
took the initiative, and it was primarily an expression of his 
grace and authority, not a bargain between equals. Yet none 
of these things contravene the character of a covenant, while 
its mutuality, its irrevocability (see v.^O? ^.nd the practical ex- 
clusion of the idea of the death of the testator, mark it as 
essentially a covenant and not a will. See on haOrjKr] in 
and detached note on LLaOrjKrj^ p. 502. The emphatic elements 
of the sentence on which the argument turns are the tt/jo- in 
7rpofC€Kvp(j0fi€V7}Vj the phrase vtto tov 6eov^ and iierd. The 
major premise of the argument is in Kercvpcop^evrjv haOrjK'qv 
ox)heL<y . . . eTFcBLardcrcreTac of v.^®; the minor premise is in 
the 0 fierd . . . of this verse, while vtto tov Beov over 

against the av6pd>7rov of v,^® heightens the force of the argu- 
ment, giving it an a minori ad majus effect. If a covenant once 
in force can not be modified or annulled by any subsequent 
action, the covenant with Abraham can not be set aside by the 
subsequent law. If this is true of a man’s covenant, much 
more is it true of a covenant made by God with Abraham, 
since God must be more certainly true to his promises than 
man. Cf, Rom. 3'*. The apostle is especially fond of argu- 
ments of this type. See the several illustrations in Rom., 
chap. 5. 

The words dq XptffT6v after 6eou, found in the leading Western mss., 
and adopted by most Syrian authorities, are an interpretative addition, 
akin to and doubtless derived from v.^®. 

The verb Tcpo>cup6(d occurs elsewhere only in much later writers (EuSo 
Prosp. Evang. X 4, etc.). The ^po- is temporal, and in this context 
means * ‘ before the law.’^ On the use of y^ in the sense '' to come,” 
^To appear in history,” see Mk. x* Jn. i Jn. 2^». The perfect 
tense marks the coming of the law as something of which an existing 
result remains, in this case evidently the law itself. BMT 154. This 
phase of the meaning can not well be expressed in English. C/. BUT 82. 

The number four hundred and thirty is evidently derived by the 
apostle from Exod. 12^®, where, though according to the Hebrew text, 
‘*the time that the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt was four hundred 
and thirty years,” the Vatican ms. of the Lxx, with which agrees, 
also the Samaritan Pentateuch, reads: ^ xaTof)CT3gi<; Tfiiv ulfiv 



T<jpGr?iX yIv jcoT^ictjaav Iv yS xal Iv y® Xav 4 :av Ity} TeTpaxoafct 

Tpii^cxovTa TcIvTS, but AF, perhaps also the second hand of B, omit 
Tc^vTs (so Tdf.), and A adds xal ol *3caT^pe<; aCiTwv. The expres- 
sion xal Iv Y^ Xavc^av, for which there is no equivalent in Hebrew, 
evidently refers to the residence in Canaan previous to that in Egypt, 
so that the whole period covered is, roughly speaking, from Abraham 
to Moses. On the comparison between this datum and Gen. 151=, 
quoted in the speech of Stephen, cf. Alf. on Gal. ad loc. For the apos- 
tle^s argument the length of the period has, of course, no significance, 
save that the longer the covenant had been in force, the more impres- 
sive is his statement. 

That h v6tio<; is the law promulgated by Moses, the participial phrase 
clearly shows; yet the presumption is that the apostle is still thinking 
of that law in the same light, or of the same aspect of it, as in 3^* 
{q. ».); and there is the less reason to depart from that presump- 
tion because it is the supreme place which Paul’s opponents had given, 
in their doctrine of the basis of acceptance with God, to the legalistic 
element of the law that leads Paul to make the affirmation dbcupoL 
The legalistic aspect is, therefore, though less in the foreground than 
in 12' still present. See detached note on Nlixo?, p. 457. 

’Axup6<d, a late Greek word (i Esd. 6^^; Dion. Hal. Antiq. 2, 72^; 
Mt. is« Mk. 713 4. Mac. 2^ 7^^ 17*; Plut. Dio, 48®; Apoph. lacon, 3), 

signifying “to make invalid,” whether by rescinding or by overriding, 
or otherwise (in Plut. Cic. 49*, apparently in a more material sense, “to 
destroy”), is here used in the first sense. Ct dcOe'cst, v.^®; M. and M. 
Voc. on dExup6o> and dOizrjacg; and De.J 55 . p. 228, quoting from papyri 
the phrase ei? dSlTijcnv xal <bc6p(i>atv. Paul would not have denied 
that in the thought and practice of men law had displaced the cove- 
nant, but that law legitimately did so (as a new law may specific- 
ally repeal previous legislation). e(g with the infinitive expresses the 
measure of effect or conceived result of dbcupot (BMT 4x1). %o{i:apYl<*> 
(of rare occurrence in Greek authors, in Lxx only 2 Esd. 4*1. 5® 6»; 

in N. T. frequent in Paul, elsewhere only in Lk. 13’ Heb. 2^*) means “ to 
make ineffective, inoperative” (a-epYov). T'Jjv i%(xyyeXiav signifies the 
same as aX lacaYT®^^*^ the singular here reflecting the substan- 

tial identity of the promises made on the several occasions, as the 
plural there recalls the various occasions and utterances. 

18 . ei yhp m vdixov KXijpopofxCay ovk4ti iwayyeXia^;* 
^^For if the inheritance is of law, it is no longer of promise.” 
As in v.^, the apostle excludes the possibility of a compromise 
between the two principles, and so justifies the use of the strong 
terms a/cvpot and /carapy^aai^ I say ‘‘annul” and “make of 

Ill, i7~i8 185 

no account,” for if the law affects the promise at all, it annuls it. 
It can not be added to it; it destroys it. The previous reference 
to the hLaOrjKT) and the iirayyeXCa make it clear that ^ fckTjpo^ 
pofXia — note the restrictive article — refers to the possession 
promised in the covenant (Gen. 13^® 15^ 17®; cf. Rom. 4^^' 
which was with Abraham and his seed. This promised posses- 
sion, while consisting materially in the promised land, was 
the expression of God^s favour and blessing (cf., e. g,, 2 Chron. 
6^^ Ps. Sol. 72 148^ on r) /cal f) /cXrjpovofxta rov 6 eov 

iariv *lapariXj 17^®), and the term easily becomes in the Chris- 
tian vocabulary a designation of the blessing of God which 
they shall obtain who through faith become acceptable to 
God (see Acts 20^2 j- Cor. 15®® Gal. 5^1 Eph. 5® Col. 3®^), of 
which blessing the Spirit, as the initial gift of the new life (v.^) 
is the earnest (2 Cor. 1^2 5® Eph. 4®®), and so the fulfilment 
of the promise (v.^'^). Such a spiritualised conception in general 
doubtless underlies the apostle’s use of it here. Cf, Rom. 4^^ 
and the suggestion of above, that he thought of the promise 
to Abraham as a promise of the Spirit. But for the purposes 
of his argument at this point, the content of the KXrjpovoixCa is 
not emphasised. It was whatever the covenant promised to 
Abraham and to his seed. His opponents would concede that 
this was a spiritual, not simply a material, blessing. 

KXTQpovoiiia (xX^poq, share, ^‘to distribute”), found in 
Isocrates, Demosthenes, and other classical writers, is in their writings 
usually a possession obtained by inheritance, but sometimes possession 
without the idea of inheritance (Aristot. Nlc, Eth. 7. 14® [1153 b®®]). 
In the papyri it is used either of one’s estate, which is to pass to one’s 
heirs, or of that which one receives by inheritance: Pap. Amh. 11 72®* *; 
BGU, 1 19, II 3, 350 ** Pap. Tebt. II 3i9«' etfreq. It occurs very 
often in the Lxx, in the great majority of cases as the translation of nSnj. 
This Hebrew word, originally signifying '‘gift,” then “possession,” or 
“share,” often refers to the possession given to Israel in Canaan 
(Deut. 12® 191^ Judg. 20® Isa. 581-* i Chr. cf. Gen. 17^' *, where, 

however, the Heb. has and the Lxx or to the share 

of a particular tribe (Jo^. chap. 19); or to Israel, or the land of 
Israel, as the possession of God (Deut. 4®® Ps. 78 [ 7910 - Sometimes it 
denotes an inheritance, usually, however, not in the sense of property 



recdved by inheritance, but of property which is left by one at death, 
or which will by usage pass to one’s descendants (Num. 362"'*. 7. s). 
Rarely, if ever, does it refer to property transmitted by will; but see 
Job 42^®. 5t>.Y]povo{xfa in the Lxx has the same range of meaning. See 
iso Sir. Ps. Sol. 7® 9* 14** « 15^^ 17*®. In N. T., though always 
translated ‘"inheritance” in E. V., only in Lk. 12^^ does it refer strictly 
to property received or transmitted by inheritance. In Mt. 2i3« 
Mk. 127 Lii. 20^* Acts 7® Heb. ii« it means “property,” “possessions” 
in the material sense. In Acts 20** Eph. 5® Col. 3*^ Heb. 9^® 

I Pet. iS it is used figuratively of a spiritual blessing which men are 
to receive from God. It is in this sense of “promised possession” 
that it is doubtless to be taken here, consistently with the use of 
SiaO'nx'o in the sense of “covenant.” Nor is there anything in the 
usage of 7.XiQpovop.fa to combat this sense of StaOiqxTQ. 

The anarthrous nouns v 6 [jlou and eTzxyyeXlaq are both to be taken 
qualitatively: the actual things referred to are b v 6 [lo<; and ixayyekioc 
(see on v.i^), but are by these phrases presented not individually as the 
law and the promise, but qualitatively as law and promise. The 
legalistic aspect of the law is a shade more in thought here than in v. ^7. 
lx denotes source, specifically that on which something depends (Th. 
s. V. II 6 ), and lx vlpiou is substantially equivalent to Iv vdpwp in v.”. 
oijxiTt is to be taken not temporally but logically, as in Rom. 7^7. 20 n® 
(Gal. 220, cited as an example of this usage by Grimm, is probably not 
such, but suggests how the logical use might grow out of the temporal). 
The conditional clause, as in chap. 2*b sets forth as a simple supposition 
what the apostle in fact regards as a condition contrary to fact. See 
BMT 243. 

Sk "Afipaaii St’ iirayyeXia*; ice^xapiarai 6 ^€^9. '‘but to 
Abraham God granted it by promise.” The implied object 
of the verb is evidently rijv fcXrjpovojxCav. KexdpLcrrac empha- 
sises the gracious, uncommercial, character of the grant, and 
the perfect tense marks the grant as one still in force, thus 
recalling the argument of The statement as a whole 

constitutes the minor premise of which the preceding sentence 
is the major premise. If the inheritance is by law, it is not 
by promise; but it is by promise; therefore it is not by 

Xapftopuxt is used from Homer down in the general sense “to do 
something pleasant or agreeable” (to another), “to do one a favour”; 
in N. T. with the meanings (a) “to for^ve” and (b) “to grant gra- 
ciously”; c/. Rom, 8”, etc. 


III, 18-19 

5. Answer to the objection that the preceding argument 
learns the law without a reason for being ( 3 ^®'^^). 

The apostle's strong and repeated insistence on the inferiority 
of law to the promise, and its inability to justify, naturally 
raises the question, weighty for one who was not prepared to 
deny to the law all divine authority, What, then, is the law 
for? This Paul answers by ascribing to it the function of 
producing transgressions, denying to it power to give life, and 
making it simply temporary and preparatory to the gospel. 

^What then is the significance of the law? For the sake of the 
transgressions it was added, to continue until the seed should come 
to whom the promise still in force was made, being enacted through 
the agency of angels in the hand of a mediator. ^But the medi- 
ator is not of one; hut God is one, "^^Is the law, then, contrary to 
the promises of God? By no means. For if there had been 
given a law that could give life, righteousness would indeed be by 
law, ^"^But the scripture shut up all things under sin that, on 
ground of faith in Jesus Christ, the promise might be given to 
those who believe, 

19. rC ovv o voixo^) ‘‘What then is the significance of the 
law? ’’ A question obviously raised by the argument advanced 
in vv.^5*^®, which seemed to leave the law without function. 
0 vo^o^ is, of course, the same law there spoken of; see on 
v.^^ and on v.^^. 

There is no perfectly decisive consideration to enable us to choose 
between the translations “why is^^ and “what is,” “what agnifies.” 
Paul frequently uses adverbially (Rom. 3^ 141® i Cor. 4^ Gal. 5^1, 
etc.), yet never elsewhere in the phrase nrf o 3 v. On the other hand, 
while o3v elsewhere signifies “what then,” not “why then” (Rom. 
2i, » 41 6^' etc,), yet when the thought “what signifies” is to be 
expressed, the copula is usually inserted, not left to be supplied. See 
I Cor. 3®: o5v eoTTtv Si ioriv IlaOXoq; Jn. 6*: Tauira Si xi 

ioTtv; but cf. other examples of a similar sense, without copula in 
Bemhardy, Syntax, p. 336. The difference of meaning is not great; the 
question, “Why the law?” is included in the more general question 
“What signifies the law, how is it with the law?” and this, as the con- 
text shows, is in any case the most prominent element of the thought 
in the apostle^s laind. o 3 v connects this question with what precedes, 
signifying “in view, then, of these statements.” 



r&v irapa^dcretav irpoaerdBr], ^^For the sake of the 
transgressions it was added/^ Trpoaeredrj marks the law as 
supplementary, and hence subordinate to the covenant. The 
statement is not in contradiction with vv.^^®*, because the law 
in the apostle's thought forms no part of the covenant, is a 
thing distinct from it, in no way modifying its provisions. It 
is the apparent contradiction that probably gave rise to the 
reading irSr)^ which occurs in this v. in D*FG and other West- 
ern authorities. 

In itself may be either telic as in Tit. Jude^® Prov. 
17^7, perhaps also Eph. 3^' or causal as in Lk. 7^^ i Jn. 3^2. 
Clem. Horn, t&v m’apaTTTcofjLdrop ^ rcpcop^a hrerac 
(cited by Ell. and Ltft). The context and Paul's usual con- 
ception of the functions of the law are both in favour of the 
telic force. For, since it is clearly the apostle's usual thought 
that where there is no law, though there may be sin, there is 
no transgression ( 7 ra/ 3 a/ 3 aw, see Rom. 4^5 513), his choice of the 
word Trapa^daecav here must be taken to indicate that he is 
speaking not of that which is antecedent but of that which is 
subsequent to the coming of law. The phrase is, therefore, by 
no means the equivalent of dixapTc&v X^P^^y and since the dis- 
tinguishing feature of irapd^aai^s is that it is not simply the 
following of evil impulse, but violation of explicit law, it nat- 
urally suggests, as involved in the irapa^dcrew^ the recognition 
of the sinfulness of the deeds, which otherwise might have 
passed without recognition. Nor can it be justly said that 
this interpretation involves the supplying of the phrase, knowl- 
edge of" {cf. Sief. ^‘so hatte doch Paulus, um verstanden zu 
werden, schreiben miissen ejnf^vdxjeo)^ t&v Trapa^da^oov 
X^P^^^^) 3 but only the discovery in the expression r&v 7rapa§d-> 
crem of its implicate, iTriyvdxreco^ dixapria^. For the 
evidence that the latter was in Paul's thought a function of 
the law and that he probably conceived of it as brought 
about through the conversion of sin into transgression, see 
Rom. 3^ 4^5 ji 3 , 14 . 20 y7-i2^ article before irapa^daecav is 
restrictive, but not retrospective. The thought probably is, 
the transgressions which will thereby be produced." 

ni, 19 


TO (TTrepjia S eTrijjfyeXrai,, “to continue until 
the seed should come to whom the promise still in force was 
made.’’ to o-Treppa is, doubtless, to be taken in the same 
sense as in viz., Christ, if is from Paul (cf, p. 182); 
otherwise as in v.^s^ those who are Christ’s. iTnjyyeXraLj per- 
fect tense, referring to a past fact and its existing result, marks 
the promise as being still in force. The whole clause, ^XP^^j 
etc., sets the limit to the period during which the law continues. 
Thus the covenant of promise is presented to the mind as of 
permanent validity, both beginning before and continuing 
through the period of the law and afterwards, the law on the 
other hand as temporary, added to the permanent covenant 
for a period limited in both directions. That the relation of 
men to God was different after the period of law was ended 
from what it had been under the law is implied in v.^s. But 
that the promise with its principle of faith was in no way 
abrogated or suspended in or after the period of the law is the 
unequivocal affirmation of and clearly implied in the 

quotation in v.^^ of Hab. 2\ which the apostle dot;btless as- 
cribed to this period. 

’'Axptq (Xv is the reading of B33, 1912 Clem. Eus. All others apparently 
read Both and dc'xpt o 5 are current forms in the 

first century (M. and M. Voc. s. z>.),but Paul elsewhere reads axptk] 
(Rom. I Cor. 15*®)- fn Rom. ii” and i Cor. 15^^ mss. vary 
between and before oQ and in i Cor. ii*® 152® a consider- 
able group add after o 5 , yet none apparently read < 5 ev. It is 
improbable, therefore, that this reading is the work of the scribes. 

Biarayeh St’ ayyiXoiv ev peairov^ “being enacted 

through the agency of angels in the hand of a mediator.” 
The mediator is self-evidently Moses; the expression ev 
is probably, as Sief. suggests, intended literally; see Exod. 
2 1 18 22^®. Concerning the tradition that angels were concerned 
in the giving of the law, see Deut 33® (Lxx not Heb.), e/c 
avrov ayjeXoc pier avTov. Jos. AnL 15. 136 (s®); Test. XII 
Pat. Dan. 6; Jub. i®®; Heb. 2^ Acts 7^' and Talmudic pas- 
sages cited by Dib.(jw/. p. 27. The intent of the whole phrase 
is to depreciate the law as not given directly by God. 



On with reference to the enactment of a law, cf, Hes, Op. 

276; Plato, Legg. XI 931 E. The participle is an aor. of identical action, 
describing one phase of the fact denoted by TOpooetiOTf] (BMT 139/.)* 
MecfTYjq, “ mediator,” belongs to late Greek. Job eYOe 6 tAea(TTQ<; 
•fjpLtSv xal iXi’fxm xal Biaxo6o)v dv( 3 j p.laov dpLipoTlpwv. Polyb. 28. 15 (17)®: 
i^o(ikexo Toilic 'PoBtou<; %goy(iiaq peakag dTuoSei^at, Diod. Sic. 4. 54, 
TouTov Y( 3 :p pl6ct^t:73v yeyQv6%(x xcov h[Lo\oyi&v. Cremer, s. t?., and Riggen- 
bach, ‘‘Der Begriff der AtaOi^jci] im Hebraerbrief,” in Theologische Studim 
Th.^Zahn . . , dargebracht, p. 307, interpret the word in this passage and 
in Jos. Ani. 4. 133 (6^) — see below — as meaning surety,” “guarantor.” 
But while this meaning would give reasonable sense to the passages, 
there is nothing in the context to require it, and these passages can not, 
therefore, be regarded as vouchers for it. Philo De Somn. I 142 (22); 
Vita MosiSi III 163 (19) : . . , pLeofTiQ? xal . . . As- 

sumpt. Mos. V* (quoted by Gelasius): xal 7:poe6edcGraT6 {is (Mcouaijjv) 6 
66b<; xpb xaTa^oXi]? x6apLou sivaf pe ScaOi^xTQq a^TOu {leafxTQV. See 
Charles, Apoc. and Pseud., ad loc. (cf. 3”) : itaque excogitavit et imenit 
me, qui ah initio orhis tertarum prceparaius sum, ut sim arbiter testamenii 
illius; Test. XII Pat. Dan. 6, {lecfxtj? 6soD xal dtvSpAxou {cf. Charles 
on Jub. 1*9); Jos. Ant 4. 133 (6^), xauxa 5 b 5 p.v 6 vT 6 (; IXeyov xal Gebv 
peafxTQv 6v OxioxvoOvxo. Ant. 16. 24 (2®). Pap. Gd. Cairo, p. 30: ^dcvaoc 
56$t) {isaefxiQV :^{ietv 56 <; (the passage is from the second century a. d. 
^{istv refers to two rival claimants for an estate between whom the (le- 
aix-qq was to be arbiter), Plut. De Is. et Osir. 46: 5 tb xal MfGpTjv ITbpoat 
Tbv peofxTQv bvo{ic 5 :i;oufftv. See other reff. in Th. s. v. In N. T., besides 
the present passage, the word occurs in Heb. 8® 9^® i2« i Tim. 2®, in all 
of which it is a title of Jesus, though in Heb. 8® there is also a sug- 
gestion of Moses as the mediator of the old covenant, meaning the law. 

20. o Si /Ji€<TLr7]<$ €?/09 ovfc eariVy 6 Be deo^ eh ecrr(p, ^'But 
the mediator is not of one; but God is one.^^ This is a part of 
the argument in depreciation of the law as compared with the 
covenant of promise, reiterating in part what has already been 
said in The first clause is a general statement deduced 
from the very definition of a mediator. From the duality of the 
persons between whom the mediator acts arid the fact that God 
is but one person, the inference intended to be drawn is that 
the law; being given through a mediator, came from God in- 
directly. That the promise came directly is not afl&rmed, but 
assumed to be in mind. To find here the thought that the 
law is conditional while the promise is unconditional, or a refer- 
ence to the unchangeableness of God, is to go beyond the 
implication of the words or the context. 

in, 19--20 1 91 

For the interpretation of this perplexing verse, of which, according 
to Fricke, Das exegetische Problem GaL 3^0, Leipzig, 1879, about three 
hundred interpretations have been proposed, the following data seem 
determinative, i. 6 is in this clause generic, lit., ‘‘The 

media.tor of one does not exist,” or “the mediator is not [a mediator] 
of one.” To make it refer directly and exclusively to a specific medi- 
ator is to make the whole sentence simply assertion, lacking even the 
appearance of argument, and to render the second half of the sentence 
superfluous. It would, indeed, come to the same thing to make 
h tJLeafxTqq refer to the mediator of v.^®, if the assertion of v.®® be under- 
stood to be true of the mediator of v.i® because true of the mediator 
as such. But this is unnecessarily to complicate the thought. 2. 
This generic statement of v.®®: h dh Ivb? oOx Icttev, is intended 

to be applied to Moses, the mediator, referred to in v.“. To introduce 
the conception of some other mediator, as, e. g., Christ (Jerome Chrys. 
ei al.)j or the law itself (Flolsten), is to exceed the indications of the con- 
text without warrant. 3, evd? must be taken as masculine, and, accord- 
'ingly, as personal, the plurality affirmed in Ivb? o6k lavtv referring to 
the contracting parties to a transaction effected through a mediator; 
no other interpretation is consistent with the use of el? in the clause 
6 Sfe 0 eb? ecjuiv, 4. The plurality affirmed in Ivb? oOx is not a plu- 
rality of persons constituting one party to the transaction effected 
through a mediator, but a duality of parties: in other words, 6 
kvhq o 5 >t iaTTtv affirms not that the party for whom the mediator acts 
must consist of a plurality of persons, but that there must be two 
parties to the transaction between whom the mediator acts as go- 
between. However attractive the interpretation which is built upon 
this definition of (j.sct(ty 3(; as the single person acting as the representa- 
tive of a group, Paul being thus made to say that since a mediator can 
not be the representative of one, and God is one, Moses as mediator 
was not the representative of God, but of the angels (Vogel in Sttd, 
u. Krit. 1865, pp. 524-38) or of the people (B. Weiss, Die pauL Brief e im 
hericUigten Text, ad loc.) jit must be rejected on the clear evidence of usage 
(see the passages above) : a peaCTir]? by no means uniformly acted for a 
plurality of persons (constituting one party), but always, however, he 
may be thought of as specially representing the interests of one party, 
stood, as both the term itself and usage show, as the middleman between 
two parties, the latter consisting each of one person or of more, as 
the case might be. 5. h Zh 6eb<; elq is most naturally taken 
as the minor premise to 6 5 b p-eafim? ^vb<; o6>c Saxiv. The unexpressed 
but self-evident conclusion from these premises applied to the concrete 
case referred to in v.»® is that to the giving of the law, in which Moses 
was mediator, there was, besides God, a second party. This in itself 
serves to emphasise the statement of v.^®, that the law was given through 
a mediator and to intimate that the covenant, in which God acted 



alone, without a mediator, is in this particular different from the law 
and superior to it.* So in the main, Fricke, op. cit. The reasoning is 
not indeed characteristically Pauline; like that of it reads more 
like the gloss of a later commentator than a part of the original argu- 
ment; and such it quite possibly is. Yet we have no decisive proof 
that Paul himself could not have added such a rabbinic re-enforceraent 
of his own argument. 

Ell's view, which while supplying “in the promise" makes the 
clause h Be 6eb? el? thus supplemented, a minor premise, the 

argument then running, A mediator is not of one party, but in the 
promise God is one; therefore, in the promise there is no mediator, 
only arrives by a laboured process at the point from which it started. 
Rendall's view. Expositor's Grk. Test.: The mediator, Moses, is not of 
one seed, but many (= the law was not like the promise for a single 
chosen family, but to many families of Abraham’s children after the 
flesh), but God is nevertheless one (=the God of Sinai is one with 
the God of promise), is singularly regardless of the requirements alike 
of the language itself and of the context. 

21. 0 ovp voixo^ tear a roov irrayyeXL&p rov 0€ov; fir) yipoiro. 
‘‘Is the law, then, contrary to the promises of God? By no 
means.’’ The question is suggested by the whole argument 
from v.^o, esp. on, which obviously suggests an affirmative 
answer. That Paul returns a negative answer signifies, how- 
ever, not that he has forgotten and is now denying what he 
has up to this time afldrmed, nor probably that he is using the 
word “law” in a different sense. It would, indeed, resolve the 
seeming contradiction and take the words in a sense not im- 
probable in itself to suppose that he here means the law simply 

It comes to nearly the same result to take 6 5e 0e6? «Is i<rrLv as referring directly to 
the promise, meaning, in effect: “But God, who gave the promise, is one, acted without a 
mediator in which fact the inferiority of the law to the promise is evident. So Ltft. But 
if this were the thought intended to be directly conveyed by this dause, it could hardly 
have failed to be expressed. It seems more reasonable to take the words h Si SeSs «tr itrrir 
as in themselves expressing only what they directly say, and to assume that the thought to be 
supplied is the conclusion which the expressed premises support. 

It may be objected to the view advocated above and equally to that of Ltft. that on the 
supposition that SuxBi^kiiv is a covenant, Paul's argument in v.*’^ turns on the fact of the two 
parties to it, and thus that the law and the covenant are in that fact placed on the same 
basis. But this ignores the fact that the argument concerning the mediator is in reality to 
the effect that the mediator stands between the two parties, making a third, separating as 
well as joining them, while in the covenant, God, the one, comes into direct relation with 
man. Moreover if, as is probably the case, and as is indicated by his use of €irayy€Xla for 
what he also calls the he shared the O. T. thought of the covenant as predomi- 

nantly one-sided, God taking the initiative, this fact would stiU further tend in his mind 
to depreciate the law as compared with the covenant. 

Ill, 20-21 

as a historical fact. But it is more likely that as he means 
here by the promises those of the covenant i®), so he 

uses law in the same sense as throughout the passage, and that 
he aflEirms that they are not in conflict (on /cardj cf, chap. 5^®* 

2 Cor. 13® Rom. 8®^, because they have distinct functions. 
Notice that it is this of which the next clause speaks. Paul 
admits, even affirms, that the law judges a man on a basis of 
works of law, and the promises on a basis of faith — ^in this they 
are different the one from the other, but he contends, as against 
his opponents who hold that men are actually justffied by law, 
that the law, whose sentence is always one of condemnation, 
was not intended to express God’s attitude towards men, is not 
the basis of God’s actual judgment of men, but is a revelation 
of a man’s legal standing only. He will presently add that it 
is thus a means of bringing us to Christ (v.^*). At present he 
is content to aflhrm that they are not in conflict, because they 
operate in different spheres. Thus one may rightly say that 
the courts are not in conflict with the pardoning power; for 
though one sentences and the other releases, each is operative 
in its own sphere, the one saying whether the accused is guilty, 
the other whether he shall be punished; or that a father who 
first ascertains by careful inquiry whether his child has dis- 
obeyed his commands, and pronounces him guilty, and then 
using this very sentence of guilty to bring him to repentance, 
and discovering that he is repentant assures him of forgiveness 
and fellowship, is in no conflict with himself. 

Tou 0soQ is omitted by B d e Victorin. Ephrem. (?) Ambrst. only. 
Despite the intrinsic improbability of the reading tou 0eou (the sen- 
tence is equally clear, more terse, and more in Paul's usual style with- 
out the words), the evidence for the insertion of the words and the 
possibility that the omission by the few witnesses on this side is an 
accidental coincidence, is too strong to permit rejection of the words. 

cl jdp iBdOrj pdpo^ 6 SvyaMepo^ ^oxyirGPija-aCy oproy; iK vofxov 
hp r} httcauxTvvrj, ‘‘For if there had been given a law that 
could give life, righteousness would indeed be by law.” 
without the article, is a law, and undoubtedly, as the context 



shows, a divine law, which the participial phrase d ^wdtievof 
^cmoiricrai further describes as “a law that could give life.” 
The form of the sentence marks it as a supposition contrary to 
fact (BJrr 248). Such a sentence is often used to prove the 
falsity of the hypothesis from the unreality of the apodosis. 
Cf. chap. 1“ I Cor. 2* i Jn. 2^^. In this case the unreality of the 
apodosis, righteousness by law, is for the present assumed, to 
be proved later, in v.“. The fact thus established, that no law 
had been given that could give life, henc; that this was not 
the purpose of the law of Moses, is adduced as proof {’yap is 
argumentative) that ’yh/ovro is the right answer to the 
question just asked, i. e., that the law is not against the prom- 
ises. The validity of this proof for its purpose lies in the 
implication, not that the two are in agreement, being of the 
same intent and significance, but that they are in separate 
realms, established for different purposes, hence not conflicting. 

’Ex v6tJLou is attested by all authorities except B and Cyr., who read 
4v v6tJL(p,* is attested by all authorities except FG 429, 206; <2v is read 
by ABC Cyr. before ?v; by K33, 218, 1912, 436, 462 after by 
429, 206 without ^v; by ®KLP al. pier. Chr. Thdrt. befoixi i% v6txou; 
it is omitted by D * 88, 442, 1952 al. Bam. and, together with ^v, by 
FG. Alike external evidence and intrinsic and transcriptional prob- 
ability point to v6^ou flv as the original reading. While 4*® shows 
that Paul might omit yet he more commonly inserts it, and when in- 
serting it, places it before the verb ; c/. chap. 1 i Cor, 2 « 1 1 Out of this 
reading arise in transcription that of K, etc., and that of the Syrian 
authorities KLP, etc., by transposition of < 2 v; that of the Western 
authorities D*, etc., by the omission of (2v {cf, the evidence on4^*)j that 
of B Cyr. by the substitution for lx vlyiou of the equally familiar 
Iv v6tx(t); and that of FG 429, 206 by the accidental omission of ^v, the 
two former from the Western reading, the two latter from the original 
reading. It wiU be observed that the insertion of (Sv in some position 
is attested by all non-Western authorities, and lx v6tJLou by all authori- 
ties except B C3nr. The assumption of Iv as original (WH.) , neces- 
sitating the derivation of the reading of AC from this original and then 
the derivation of all other variants from this secondary form, involves 
a genealogical relationship distinctly more difficult than that above 
proposed, as wdl as the adoption of a sub-singular reading of B against 
all other pre-Syrian authorities. 

On an attributive with the article after an indefinite substantive, see 

Ill, 21-22 195 

W. XX 4 (WM. p, 174); Rad. p. 93; Gild. Syn. p. 283; Rob. p. 777; 
'QMT 424. Cf. chap, 2*® Acts 4^*, etc. 

Zcooxotiti) occurs in the Lxx in the sense, ^'to cause to live,’’ “to 
give life”: Neh. 9®: atl) (6£6<;) Td: x&y^voc. 2 Kgs. 5’'; “to save 

alive”: Jdg. 21^* Ps. 712®. In N. T. it means “to cause to live,” “to 
germinate” (of a seed): i Cor. 15®®; ' zo bring to life” (the dead): 
Rom. 8^1 I Coir. 15^2^ «to give spiritual life”: Jn. 2 Cor. 3®, In 
the last passage it stands in antithesis to the death sentence of the 
law, and thus acquires a certain forensic sense. It is probable that 
this is the prominent clement in the thought of the word here; that it 
is, in fact, the causative of as used in v.^® (see note on t^i^creirae 
there) and in effect means “to justify.” That there is an associated 
idea of the ethical life which is imparted by the Spirit of God, as in 
2*0 52B (c/. 5I6. 18) Rom. 8®‘», or of the eternal life after death, as in 
Rom. 81®' “ (note esp. i^), is not improbable. Ell. and Sief. make the 
reference exclusively to the latter, and interpret the argument as one 
from effect to cause: If there were a law that could give eternal life, 
then justification, which is the condition precedent of such life, would 
be in law. This, also, is possible, but less probable than a more direct ref- 
erence to justification in l^6)oicoiY]0at. lx y 6 [Lou (cf. textual note above), 
here as in v.i« (g. v,)j expresses source — righteousness would have 
proceeded from law, had its origin in law. It is a qualitative phrase, 
but that which is referred to is the Mosaic law as a legalistic system. 
The emphasis of •?) ScxaioaiivTQ is doubtless upon the forensic element in 
the meaning of the word (see detached note on AtxoctoaCvTQ VI B 2, 
and cf. esp. 2®i). The article reflects the thought that there is but one 
way of acceptance with God, the sentence meaning not, “ there would 
be a way of acceptance with God on a basis of legalism” (cf. 2*^, but 
“the way of acceptance would be,” etc. 

22 . aXXA (Tvv^/cXeiaev 2} ypa^rj rb, Trdvra xmo bpaprlav 
“But the scripture shut up all things under sin.” aWb tnarks 
the contrast between the unreal hypothesis of .and the 
actual fact as here stated, which furnishes the proof that the 
apodosis of “righteousness would have been of law,” and 
hence also the protasis, “if a law had been given that could 
give life,” which that verse by its form implies to be contrary to 
fact, are actually such. That the proof is drawn from the 0 . T. 
law implies that the latter is the only law actually in question, 
or that if the O. T. law could not justify no law could. The 
scripture is probably Deut. 27*®, referred to in v.^® — a passage 
from the law, and cited here as embodying the verdict of the 



law. The reference to ^nd the context in general give to 
VTTO afxapriav the meaning “under condemnation of sin/’ 
equivalent to v^o tcardpav in v.^o. All this refers, it must be 
noted, not to God’s sentence against men, but to the verdict 
of law. Paul is still arguing that from law comes no righteous- 
ness, no justification; that for this one must come to God in 
faith. See the next clause. 

SuvxXefo) is found in Greek writers from Herodotus down in various 
senses, but primarily with the meaning “to shut up,” “to confine,” 
either inceptive, “to put in confinement,” or continuative, “to hold 
confined.” So also in the Lxx, Ps. 30* (31*): 06 auv^y.Xetaci<; ae elg 
lx8pou. 77 (78)®°; likewise in N. T., Lk. s« Rom. 

In the usage of the N. T. writers in general and of Paul in particular 
the singular refers to a particular passage of the 0 . T. Note 

the expressions f) Ypa^-J) auriQ (Acts 8®®)? yg<x(p'h (Jn. 19®^) xacra 

yga<fii (2 Tim. 3^®), and the fact that elsewhere in the Pauline epistles 
the singular is uniformly accompanied by a quotation (chap. 3® 4»o Rom. 
4® 91’ roll ii*). See also i Tim. 51®. In 2 Tim. 3^®, xaaa ygcxcpii, a 
specific passage is, of course, out of the question. Deut. 27*®, quoted 
in v.i®, and Ps. 1432, quoted in 2‘®, would both be appropriate to the 
apostle’s purpose in this v., but the remoteness of the latter passage 
makes against its being the one here meant. A reference to a passage 
itself in the law is, moreover, more probable in view of the fact that 
it is the function of this law that is under discussion. 

T< 3 t xdv*ra, equivalent to to 5 <; %<k)fT(xq in Rom. ii®*, refers to all who 
were under h v6p.os (v.*Oj the Jews, since at this point the ques- 
tion pertains simply to the function or reason for existence of the law. 
On the neuter used of persons, the rhetorical effect being somewhat to 
obliterate the thought of individuals and to present those referred to 
as a solidarity, see i Cor. i®’ Col. i®® Eph. i^® Jn. 17^°. Oxb dpiapTfav 
in Rom. 71® (cf. 6“' ”) means “under the power of sin” and in Rom, 3® 
“sinful” (though some interpreters take it in the sense of “under 
condemnation”). But these single instances of the phrase in different 
specific senses are not sufl&cient to set aside the dear evidence of the 
context in favour of the meaning, “under condemnation for sin,” 
which is in itself equally possible. 

Xva hra/^yekia ifc Tr^rrew ^Irjaov 'X.pccrrov rol^ 

TrUrrevovaiv, “ that, on ground of faith in Jesus Christ, the prom- 
ise might be given to those who believe.” This clause ex- 
presses the purpose of the shutting up, referred to in the pre- 
ceding clause: a purpose which, as the mention of Jesus Christ 

Ill, 22 


as the object of faith shows, is to be achieved not for each indi- 
vidual in the period of law as he learns the lesson that law 
teaches, but in the historic establishment of the new principle; 
and a purpose of God, as is shown by the fact that the result 
described is that which is achieved in the gospel, which is for 
Paul the gospel of God. But this, in turn, implies that the 
shutting up was itself an act of God, or, more exactly, that the 
declaration of the scripture expressed something which God 
desired men to learn from the experience under law. In other 
words, though to isolate the law and understand it as defining 
the way of salvation is wholly to misunderstand God^s attitude 
towards men, yet the law was given by God to accomplish a 
certain work preparatory to the giving of the gospel, viz., to 
demonstrate that men can not be justified on grounds of merit. 
Thus it is that Paul finds a way to reconcile his rejection of the 
legalism which he found in the law, with the divine origin of 
the law; instead of denying the latter, as Marcion later in effect 
did (Iren. Haer. i. 27^). 

'H sxayYeXfa is manifestly, as in the promise to Abraham, 

involved in the covenant, and, as in v.^^ is used by metonymy for the 
thing promised. See reff. there. Whether the reference is as in 
specifically to the Spirit, or more generally to acceptance with God 
with all that this involves, is impossible to say with certainty. On 
iv. ocfoTeox; cf. 2 ^®, and notes and reff. there. It here expresses the 
ground on which the giving (So0^) takes place. XptcrroO is, as 

always after an objective genitive. See notes on Siti 

XpiaxoG 'ItjjoG, 2 ^«. zoi<; -jciaTeGouaiv, a general present participle 
(Bilfr 123) with generic article — to believers — is the indirect object 
of 5o0ft. It is necessary to complete the sense, though the thought 
has been in effect expressed by lx icCareox;. The repetition emphasises 
the fact that only through faith could the promise be fulfilled. 

6. Characterisation of the condition under law, andy in 
contrast with it, the condition since faith earner 
then we were held in custody under law, now we 
are all sons of God, heirs of the promise 

In further confirmation of the temporariness of the law and 
the inferiority of the condition under it the apostle describes 



the latter as one of custody, and that of a child under a 
pedagogue. Now, however, that that period is over and the 
full Christian experience of faith has come, we are no longer in 
subjection. Ye are sons of God, and aU alike, without distinc- 
tion of race, status, or sex, one in Christ Jesus; but if in him, 
and his, then also seed of Abraham. Thus the argument 
returns to its starting point in v.L 

'^But before the faith came, we were kept guarded under law, 
shut up for the obtaining of the faith that was to be revealed. ^So 
that the law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ, that 
we might be justified by faith. ^But the faith having come we are 
no longer under a pedagogue. ^For ye are all sons of God, through 
your faith, in Christ Jesus. ^Wor as many of you as were bap- 
tised unto Christ did put on Christ. ^There is no Jew nor Greek, 
no slave nor free, no male and female; for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. ^^And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye seed of Abraham, 
heirs according to promise. 

23 . wpo TOW 8e ekBeiv ttjv rriariv imo vdtxov e<ppovpovixe 0 a 
“But before the faith came, we were kept guarded under law.” 
By Trjv 'tricmv is meant not faith qualitatively; the article ex- 
cludes this; not generically; Paul could not speak of this as 
having recently come, since, as he has maintained, it was at 
least as old as Abraham; nor the faith in the sense “ that which 
is believed” {cf. on i“); but the faith in Christ just spoken of 
in V.®. That this was, in the apostle’s view, fundamentally 
alike in kind with the faith of Abraham is clear not chiefly 
from the use of the same word, but from the apostle’s definite 
defence of the Christian faith on the ground that the principle 
was established in the case of Abraham. That it was specifi- 
cally different is indicated by the use of the definite article, the 
frequent addition of Tijo-oO 'Kpicrrov, and by the assertion of 
this verse that the faith came at the end of the reign of the 
law. The phrase wro pdpov is a qualitative phrase, “under 
law,” but tJie law referred to is, of course, that spoken of in 
v.“, and this in turn the same as in v.i* Xg. 0,). That the sub- 
jection referred to in this phrase was not absolute, exclud- 
ing the possibility or privilege of faith, or justification by it, 

m, 23 


5 s shown by and the argument of The law has a 

Teal function, but that function is not the displacement of faith. 
Cf, on v.22b. That the apostle has so far modified his thought 
of that fimction since as to be speaking here in icf)povpovjj.effci 
of protection against transgressions is wholly improbable, for 
though (jipovpeo) in itself may be used of a protective guarding 
(2 Cor. Phil. 4^ i Pet. i®, and examples in classical writers) 
yet the proximity of and the participle awfcXeLopevoc 
compel us to understand it here of a restrictive guarding, 
avPfcXetofxevoi eU rrjp pieWovaav tticttiv a7rotcaXv(f>9rjvai, 
‘^shut up for the obtaining of the faith that was to be 
revealed/^ On the meaning of crvvKkevoiJievoL^ see crvveKXaaeVy 
v.^2. It is here a present participle of identical action, hence 
used in its continuative sense, '^to hold in confinement/’ as in 
Aristot. Part, Animal, II 9. 8 (654 b^®) : al awfcXetovcrac TrXeu- 
pal TO (TTrjOo^, The sense having been put into confine- 
ment” would demand an aor. or perfect participle, the latter 
of which some mss,, most of them late, have. The participle 
liiXkovcraVj limiting *7rLcmv, marks the latter as future from 
the point of view of the verb e<^povpovfie6a (QMT 142); the 
revelation is at the time of the writing already past. eU may 
be either temporal, as in Phil, 2^®, or telic, order to 
produce, give, or obtain” (in this case the latter), as in i Cor. 
5® Rom. 3^® Col. Acts 2^ i Pet. i®* \ So Th. for this passage, 
interpreting it “that we might the more readily embrace the 
faith when its time should come.” Of similar ambiguity and 
interestingly parallel to this passage is i Pet. i®, ^povpovixevoxs 
hia TTiarew €t9 <T0)T7]p(av eToCprjv cv7rOfcaXv^9i]vai ip KaLp& ia- 
%dr(^ {cj, wh ^), which may mean “guarded until (we obtain) 
a salvation,” etc., or “that we may obtain.” The temporal 
meaning is the simpler, finding in the phrase less that is not 
certainly expressed by it,. but in view of the fact that eh with 
temporal force is usually followed by a term of time, and that 
the thought which the telic sense implies is expressed both in 
V.20 above and v.^^ below, it is probably best to suppose it to 
be intended here also. On a7rotcaXv^9rjvai^ see detached note, 
p. 433, and esp. Rom. 8^® i Cor. 2^® Eph. 3® i Pet. i®. 



24. &ar€ o vSiJofTraihayoiyc^ f)ix 5 >v y 4 yovev 'Kpicrrov^ ‘^So 
that the law has been for us a pedagogue to bring us to Christ/' 
0 vSpm has the same significance as in except that it is 
here definitely instead of qualitatively spoken of. A iraiSayo)- 
y(k was a slave employed in Greek and Roman families to have 
general charge of a boy in the years from about six to sixteen, 
watching over his outward behaviour and attending him when- 
ever he went from home, as e, g. to school. See exx. below. 
By describing the law as having the functions of a 7ratSa7co7o9 
Paul emphasises both the inferiority of the condition of those 
under it, analogous to that of a child who has not yet arrived 
at the freedom of a mature person, and its temporariness (cf, 
V.25). €19 Xpccrrop may be temporal {cf. on eU rrjv . , . 
vP) or may be pregnantly used. For exx. of a somewhat 
siTmlflr though not identical pregnant force, see Rom. 

Mt. 20^ I Pet. ra eU ILpccrrop iraOrniara, In view of the 
fact that temporal usually takes a temporal object, and of 
the final clause, ha , . . StKaL0)6&fX€Vj the pregnant use is 
here the more probable. Yet it does not follow, nor is it prob- 
able that it is to Christ as a teacher that men are thought of 
as coming; the functions of the 7raiSayo)y6^ were not so exclu- 
sively to take the boy to school as to suggest this, and the 
apostle's thought of Christ both in general and in this passage 
is not of him as a teacher but as one through faith in whom 
men were to be saved. Nor is the reference to the individual 
experience under law as bringing men individually to faith in 
Christ. For the context makes it clear that the apostle is speak- 
ing, rather, of the historic succession of one period of revela- 
tion upon another and the displacement of the law by Christ, 
See esp. How the law accomplished its task is in 

no way intimated in this word or phrase, but appears in the 
final clause following, and the repeated intimations of the 
entire context. See esp. v/*. C/. Th. s. v, 'rr(uBayo)y6<;, 

On the use of the word Hdt. 8’*: Sfxtvvot;, oWtijc 

xal xoeiJaY<AY^9 ^v xafSwv. Eur. lofij 725, icpiopu 

, xaiBflrfi&Y' *Epix64a><; %(XTp6q toOjjioO xot^ and esp, the following 
passage quoted by Lift, ad toe. from Plato, Lysis ^ 208 C: ol aMv 


m, 24-25 

5p)^8tv creauTOu, touto iTciTplicouaf aot; Ilfic Y<5:p, i<pr), iTcttpiroumv; 

'AXX' 5pxei Tfq aou; “OSs •xat^aycar^qf itprj. Mwv BoOXoq ^Sv; 'AXXd tC 
pLf|v; ‘Jjp.4T£p6c ye, i(pitj. 5etv6v, i]v t* iytii, IXe66epov ^vxa 6xb Bo6Xou 
fipXeoSae. rl 51 woiwv ai3 oSto^ h xaiSaytdY^^ uou <2pxet; ’'Ay(i>v B'^xou, 
2?*n, ck StBaaxiiXou. See also Xen, Laced. 3 ': Btov ye p.fjv lx xa(5(i>v elq 
rb iietpaxioHadat Ixgafvcocre, -nQvexauTa ol pilv (SfXXot xa6ouai 4x5 xai- 
bocyttiyUv, xatSoufft 51 xal 4x5 StBadxdcXwv, 4pxouat 51 oSBIve? Ixt advi^v, 
4XX* a^TovAytouq 4<pia<jiv. Plut. Fa^. 5-*: ol t5v $4gtov oxc^rovreq xal 
xaxacppovouvTeq *Avv(pou xai5aY(«>Yi>v 4xex4Xouv. The word is frequent in 
Plutarch's Lwes. With the luatbaytdyOx of Pint. Numa, 15* {cf, Ltft.) in 
the sense of moral education” this passage has little or no connection. 
For further treatment and references, see Becker, Charicles, E. T. 4th 
cd., pp. 226/.; Becker and Marquardt, Rom. Alt. vol. I, pp. 114, 122, 164; 
Girard, U Education Ath^ienne, pp. 114 ff.; Cramer, De Educatione Pm^ 
forum apud Athenienses, Marburg, 1823. Harper^ s Dictionary of Clas- 
steal Lit. and Antiq., art. ‘‘Education”; HDB, art. “Schoolmaster”; 
further references to sources in h. & S. s. v. 

Lua etc 7rl(rT€W SL/caicoO&fxev" ^^that we might be justified 
by faith.’’ The clause expresses the ultimate purpose of the 
law in its function as 7ratBayo3y6<;, as v.^® expresses the imme- 
diate intended result. The emphasis of the expression is on 
SiKaLCod&fiev, not on ifc Tr/errew, as if there were different 
ways of justification, and the purpose of the law was that we 
might be justified in this rather than in some other way; for 
the apostle maintains that there is no other way. Cf. ifc 
TTiarew 'Kpiarov in 2^®^, which is similarly added for complete- 
ness, and with descriptive rather than restrictive force. On 
the meaning of eV 'Trwrreco?, cf. also on 2^^^ (pp. 121, 123), and 
on hfcaiood&fxev see detached note on ALfcaioq^ etc., p. 473, 

26. ik6ov<T7)q Ze r^9 irCareoy; ovk4tc vtto TraiSaycoyop iaixev, 
'‘But the faith having come we are no longer under a peda- 
gogue.” The article with Trwrrew is restrictive, and the refer- 
ence is as in v.®^ {g. v.) to the faith in Christ, ov/cdri is tem- 
poral, contrasting the two periods of time, with possibly a 
suggestion of consequence, the post hoc being also a propter hoc. 
Cf. on 3^®. The phrase irrro TrcnZayo>y6v is equivalent, as con- 
cerns the fact referred to, to vtto vd^iov^ the epithet being sub- 
stituted for the name; but conveys more clearly than virb vjfwp 
the idea of subjection and inferior standing. The coming of 



the faith is a historic event, identical with the giving of the 
gospel (see 4^- ® Rom. not an experience of successive 

individuals. C/. on v.^^. How far this historic event was itself 
conditioned on personal experience, or how far it repeats itself 
in the experience of each believer is remote from the apostle’s 
thought here. 

26 . TLdvre^i yap viol 0 eov iare Scd tt}*; Tr^crreco? iv "Kpcar^ 
^Irjaov. ''For ye are all sons of God, through your faith, in 
Christ Jesus.” By the change from the first person of v.25, 
with its reference to the Jewish Christians, to the second person 
in this V. the apostle applies the thought of that v. directly to 
his readers. One must supply as the connecting thought to 
which yap is, as often, directly related, some such phrase as, 
''And this applies to all of you.” That irdvre^ is emphatic is 
indicated by its position, but esp. by the continuation of the 
thought of universality in v.^s. It may then mean "all you 
Gentiles,” so including the Galatians; or if, as is possible, there 
were some Jews in the Galatian churches, it may mean "all 
you Galatians,” emphasising the fact that the statements of 
apply to all the Christians of Galatia, Gentiles as well as 
Jews. In either case viol 9 €OVj a qualitative expression with- 
out the article, repeats and explicates the idea of ovk^tc vTrh 
TratSaycoyov {cf. the use of various phrases for the related idea 
"sons of Abraham” in vv.^^ The emphasis of the ex- 

pression is, therefore, upon "sons of God” as objects of God’s 
favour, men in filial favour with God. See detached note on 
Titles and Predicates of Jesus, V, p. 404. Cf, 4^’ ® for the 
expression of the thought that subjection to law and sonship 
to God are mutually exclusive. That & Xp4«rr^ does 

not limit wCarew is evident because Paul rarely employs & 
after Trior (see, however, Col. i** Eph. i^®), and in this letter 
always uses the genitive (2^®* ^ 3^), but especially because 
^ take up and dwell upon the fact that the Galatians are 
in Christ Jesus. And this fact in turn shows that, unless Paul 
shifts his thought of the meaning of after he has used it 
before Xpccrr^ Tt/ctou, it has here its metaphorical spatial 
sense, marking Christ as one in whom the believars live, with 

m, 25-27 


whom they are in fellowship. This does not of necessity exclude 
the thought that Christ is the basis of their sonship to, God, 
but makes this a secondary and suggested thought. For a 
similar instance of a phrase introduced by iv standing after 
•7r((rTc<: but limiting an earlier element of the sentence, see 
ej' . . . aXfxaTL Rom. 3^®. rrj^ Trlareoy;, standing then with- 
out limitation, the article may refer specifically to the Chris- 
tian type of faith, as in 2^, or to the faith of the Galatians, 
meaning ^^your faith cf. 2 Cor. The latter is more prob- 
able because of the personal character of the statement as 
against the impersonal, historical, character of 25^ 

On Ge6q without the article in ulol 0eoO, see on chap. 4®. 

27 . &G‘OL Jap eU Xpcarbv i^aTrricrdrjTey ’X.picxrov evehxicraarOe^ 
''For as many of you as were baptised unto Christ did put on 
Christ.’^ The fact that the verbs are in the second person, 
requires the insertion of the words "of you’^ into the transla- 
tion, though they are not in the Greek. But it must not be 
supposed that bcroc includes only a part of the 7 rdvre;\ for this 
would be itself in effect to contradict the preceding v. By 
e^airricrOrjre the apostle undoubtedly refers to Christian bap- 
tism, immersion in water. See Th. s. v, II; Preusch. s, v,; 
M. and M. Voc. s, v. This is the uniform meaning and appli- 
cation of the term in Paul (i Cor. 12^3 jj 29 Rom. 6®), with 
the single exception of i Cor. lo^, where he speaks of the bap- 
tism of the Israelites into Moses in the cloud and in the sea 
as a thing of similar character and significance with Christian 
baptism. Nowhere does he use the term in a figurative sense 
as in Mk. lo®®* Jn. Acts eh Xpcardv is probably 
to be taken here and in Rom. 6® in the sense "with reference to 
Christ’' (on this use of €l 9 see Th. B II 2 a), and as equiva- 
lent to eh TO bvofxa "XpcoTov, See more fully in fine print 
below. "To put on Christ” is to become as Christ, to have 
his standing; in this context to become objects of the divine 
favour, sons of God, as he is the Son of God. Cf. 4®* By 
the whole sentence the apostle renoinds his readers that they, 
who have been baptised, in confession of their acceptance of 



Christ, already possess all that it is claimed that circumcision 
and works of law could give them, viz., the divine favour, a 
relation to God like that which Christ sustains to God. It is 
a substantiation {ydp) of the assertion of v.*®, that they are 
sons of God, drawn from an interpretation of the significance 
of their baptism. 

The idiom lvB 6 ear 0 at with a personal object is found in late Greek 
writers. Thus in Dion. Hal Antiq. ii. 5*, rbv Tap)t6vtov Ixetvov IvSu- 
bpievot, “playing the part of that Tarquinius”; Libanius, Ep. 968 (350 
A. D.), Tbv <jTpaTt(i>TT)v 4v4Su Tbv aofpKjTTQv: “He laid aside the char- 
acter of the soldier, and put on that of the sophist.” It occurs once in 
the Lxx with a somewhat different force: Isa. 49^*: •jc&vraq afiToi? 
x6<iti.ov xal xtgSiiasiq advoCiq &q &q vOtigrj, and several 

times in N. T.: Rom, 13^^: dXXd: MOaaaOe rhv x6piov TiQffoDv Xpiarbv. 
Col. 3®"“, dxexJuadpisvot 'cbv icaXaibv (XvOpwxov aCtv Tat? xp( 5 :?e<jiv a^TOu, 
xal ivbuacipLevoi xbv viov vhv dbaxocivoOpievov. Eph, 4**“*^, dciuoSigOoet . . . 
Tbv xoeXaibv SvOp(i)xov . . . xal Ivd6aaa’6at Tbv xaivbv fivOptoxov. The 
related figure of clothing one's self with strength, righteousness, glory, 
salvation, occurs frequently in 0 . T.: Prov. 31“ Job 8** 29^^ 391* Ps. 
921 103 (104)1 131 (132) »• !«• Isa. SI® 521 6ii» I Mac. i**; and a sim- 
ilar figure with a variety of objective limitations in N. T.: Rom. 
131*: lvBua(t){i.66a Tck bxXa roS qio>’c6q. x Cor. 15**: IvbOcrctaBai dpSapcr^av 
. . . IvbCffacxOat dtGavacfotv. 15*^: IvB^oiQTat dOavaatav. Eph. 6“: iv 56 - 
cac0E tJjv xavoxX^ov tou 6 eo 0 . 6'^, IvSuadpLevot Tbv BcGpaxa xfiq StxatoalivTQC. 

’ Col. 31*: dvB 6 <iaa 0 e . . . <TxXdeYXvaolxTtppi.oO, i Th. $*, IvBuadpLsvot 0(iipaxa 
%iaxeoq xal dydxTjq. These passages show that the idiom conveyed no 
suggestion of putting on a mask, but referred to an act in which one 
entered into actual relations. Used with an impersonal object, it 
means “to acquire,” “to make a part of one's character or possessions” 
(i Thes. 5* I Cor. 15”' Rom. 13” Col. 3”); with a personal object it 
signifies “to take on the character or standing” of the person referred 
to, “to become,” or “to become as.” See Rom. i3i< Col. 3“; note 
in each case the adjacent example of the impersonal object and cf, 
the exx. from Dion. Hal, (where the context makes it dear that Tbv Tap. 
ix. lvBu6p,evot means “acting the part of Tarquinius,” “standing in 
his shoes,”) and Libanius. This meaning is appropriate to the present 
passage. The fact that the Galatians have put on Christ is dt«i as 
proof that they are sons of God as Christ is the Son of God. 

The preposition elq with gaxTft;^ signifies (a) literally and spatially 
“into,” followed by the element into which one is plunged: Mk. i«; 
i»*; (b) “unto” in the telic sense, “in order to obtain”: Acts a**; (c) 
followed by Uvopux, “with respect to,” specifically, “with meatioa or 


ni, 27 

confession of’’: i Cor. !«• Mt. Acts 8” ig®; with similar force 
but without the use of SvotJLoc: Acts 19®. It was formerly much dis- 
cussed whether here and in Rom. 6® the meaning is the same as in 
I Cor. etc., or whether etc signifies into fellowship with,” Th. 

(c/. II b. aa) Ell., S. and H. on Rom., et al, hold; Sief. combines 

the two views. As between the two the former is to be preferred, for, 
though the conception of fellowship with Christ in his death is ex- 
pressed in the context of Rom. 6®, neither general usage of the phrase 
nor that passage in particular warrant interpreting dq as 

having other than its usual meaning, ‘‘to baptise with reference to.” 
But if this is the case with Rom. 6*, then usage brings to the present 
passage no warrant for finding in it any other than the regular meaning 
of the phrase, and the context furnishing none, there is no ground for 
discovering it here. More recent discussion, however, has turned upon 
the question whether in both groups of passages (i Cor. “ Acts 
i9», as well as Rom. 6® and here) there is a reference to the use of the 
name in baptism with supposed magical effect, as in the mystery relig- 
ions. See Preusch. s. v. and literature there referred to, esp. 

Heitmiiller, Taufe und Abendmahl^ also Lake, The Eiorlier Epistles of 
St. Paid, pp. 383-391; Case, The Evolution of Early Christianity, pp. 
347 /. For the purposes of this commentary it must sulB&ce to point 
out the following outstanding facts affecting the interpretation of 
Paul’s thought: (a) The use of etc 'cb Hvop.a was in all prob- 

ability derived from the usage of the mystery religions, and to one 
familiar with that usage would suggest the ideas associated with such 
phraseology, (b) The apostle constantly lays emphasis on faith and 
the Spirit of God (see, e. g., 5«' as the characteristic factors of 

the Christian experience. It would seem that if, denying all spiritual 
value to such a physical rite as circumcision, he ascribed effective force 
to baptism, his arguments should have turned, as they nowhere do, on 
the superiority of baptism to circumcision, (c) i Cor. makes it 

probable that the Corinthians were putting upon their Christian bap- 
tism the interpretation suggested by the mystery religions, viz., that 
it secured their salvation. Against this view Paul protests, using the 
case of the Israelites passing through the Red Sea, which he calls a 
baptism into Moses, to show that baptism without righteousness does 
not render one acceptable to God. This may, of course, signify only 
that he conceived that the effect of baptism was not necessarily per- 
manent, or that to baptism it is necessary to add a righteous life. But 
it is most naturally interpreted as a protest against precisely that doc- 
trine of the magical efficiency of physical rites which the mystery 
religions had made current. If this is the case and if the thought of 
the apostle here is consistent with that in i Cor. 10, the relation between 
the fact referred to in the relative clause and that of the principal 



clause is not (as in 3’ Rom. 8**) causal, but that of symbol and S5unboI- 
ised fact. The requirement of the pcissage that there shall be a natural 
connection of thought both between this v. and the preceding, and 
between the two clauses of this, is met by supposing (i) that the 
exceptional mention of baptism in this passage (as, e. g., instead of faith) 
was suggested by its relation as the initiatory Christian rite to circum- 
cision (cf. Col. 2^. w) which the Galatians were being urged to accept, 
and (2) that there was something in the act of baptism as thought of 
by the apostle which suggested the figure of being clothed with Christ. 
This may have been that in baptism one was, as it were, clothed with 
the water, or, possibly, that the initiate was accustomed to wear a 
special garment. To such a relation in thought between fact and out- 
ward symbol there can be, despite Lake’s statement that such a thought 
was almost unknown to the ancients, no serious objection in view of 
Gal. 2*0 Rom. 5^^ i Cor. ii*«. If, indeed, the relation is causal, the 
apostle must have changed his conception of the matter between the 
writing of Gal. and i Cor., or he conceived of the rite as having no 
necessarily permanent effect and its value as conditioned upon the 
maintenance of a morally pure life. 

28 . ovjc €Pc ’Iot»SaZo9 ovSe ovk eve 8 ov\o<^ ovSk 

iXevdepo^^y ovk he apaev /cal dijXv* There is no Jew nor 
Greek, no slave nor free, no male and female.’^ Following the 
previous sentence without connective either causal or illative, 
these words do not demand to be closely joined in thought to 
any specific element of what immediately precedes. With the 
thought of the basis of acceptance with God in mind, expressed 
in V.2® in the form that through faith men become sons of God, 
and in v.^^ in a different form, the sweep of his thought carries 
him beyond the strict limits of the question at issue in Galatia 
to affirm that all distinctions are abolished, and to present an 
inspiring picture of the world under one universal religion. 
iv Xptarfy expressed in the similar passage 5®, and implied in 
Col. 3^^, is doubtless to be mentally supplied here also. It is 
only in the religion of Christ that Paul conceives that men can 
thus be brought together. That he is speaking of these dis- 
tinctions from the point of view of religion is evident from the 
context in general, but especially from his inclusion of the 
ineradicable distinction of sex. The passage has nothing to do 
directly with the merging of nationalities or the abolition of 


m, 27-28 

slavery. Cf, 1 Cor. Nor are the passages from ancient 

writers, quoted, e, g., by Zahn ad ioc. (p. 187), in which these 
distinctions are emphasised, directly antithetical to this afiErma- 
tion of the apostle. Yet that the principle had its indirect 
social significance is shown in the implications of the Antioch 
incident and in Phm. le Col. 4^ 

On "'EXXiqv, meaning Gentile, not specifically Greek, see on 2<. Ive, 
not a contracted form of Iveortt, but a lengthened form of Iv, lv{ with 
recessive accent, but having the force of iveaTt or ^vetae, as xapdc and 
i%l are used with the force of iTcsorirt and xdtpeaTt, may, like the form 
gveoTt itself, mean either ^‘itis present, “there is,’’ or “it is possible.” 
See W. § XIV i (older eds. 2); BL-D. g8; Hatzidakis, Einleitung in die 
neugriechische Grammatik, 207, and the examples of both meanings 
given in L. & S. Ltft,, without assigning reasons, maintains that oCx 
ivt must here negative “not the fact only but the possibility,” and 
RV. adopts this interpretation in all the N. T. instances: Jas. 

I Cor. 65 Col. 3“, and the present passage. But in none of these pas- 
sages does the context demand this meaning, and in i Cor. 6® it is a dis- 
tinctly difficult meaning. In 4 Mac. 422 the meaning is clearly “it is 
possible,” but in Sir. 37* as clearly “there is (in it).” It seems neces- 
sary therefore to make choice between the two meanings for the 
present passage solely by the context. And this favours the meaning 
“there is” (so Sief. Bous.) rather than “there can be.” There is 
nothing in the sentence to suggest that Paul has passed from the state- 
ment of fact to that of possibilities. On the other hand, it is apparently 
true that the word never quite loses the force derived from Iv as a 
preposition of place, and that one must mentally supply after it a 
prepositional phrase introduced by dv, or the like: in this case not 
Iv OyiTv, for which the context furnishes no basis, but Iv Xptor^, as 
suggested by Xptcnrbv Iveb6vaa0e and 5*. 

7 rdvTe 9 ydp vfjLch eh icrre ip Xpurr^ ^Ir^aov. “for ye are 
all one in Christ Jesus.” These words confirm, by repeating 
it in another form, the thought of the preceding sentence, eh 
may be taken distributively and qualitatively, or inclusively 
and numerically. In the former case the meaning is: once in 
Christ Jesus, whether you be Jew or Gentile, slave or master, 
man or woman, all these distinctions vanish (there is no respect 
of persons with God); it is as if it were always the same person 
reappearing before him, C/. i Cor. 3*. In the latter case the 

2 o8 


thought is that all those in Jesus Christ merge into one per- 
sonality. Cf. I Cor. 12^2 , 13 Rom. ^ CoL 3^®. There is 
little ground for a choice between the two ideas. Both are 
equally Pauline and equally suitable to the immediate context. 
Only in the fact that the second interpretation furm'shes a 
sort of middle term between the assertion of that Christ 
is the seed, and that of that those who are Christ’s are seed 
of Abraham is there a ground of preference for the second in- 
terpretation, and this only in case is from Paul, Xptcrrm 
*l 7 f(rou is doubtless to be understood substantially as in v.^®, 
describing Jesus Christ as the one in whom they live, by whom 
their lives are controlled, with the added suggestion that by 
this fact their standing before God is also determined. 

el<; Icrcl Iv Xpiattp TiQaoO: so K^BCDKLP al. pier. Syr. (psh.) Boh. (but 
some mss. omit Ttjarou) Clem, Athan. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. al.; Sv eati: FG 
33, d e f g Vg. Or. Athan Bas. at; IotI XpuToO TTjaoO, omitting el?: 
but A has Iv deleted after la'tl. is thus a witness to Iv X. I. as well as 
to the genitive. With practically all the witnesses, except A, attesting Iv X. 
I. against ^^A for the genitive there can be no doubt that the reading of the 
latter is derivative, due to assimilation to v.^^ Before latl, el? is clearly the 
original reading, changed by Western authorities to Iv, as in 31* f 5 ? is changed 
to S by a part of the Western documents. 

29 , ei Be ipel^ Xptcrrot}, dpa rod *A^padp (Twepjxa eVre, year* 
hrayyeXiav K\ 7 }pov 6 fxoL. “And if ye are Christ’s, then are 
ye seed of Abraham, heirs according to promise.” Be is con- 
tinuative, the new sentence adding fresh inferences from what 
has already been said. The conditional clause, expressing in 
itself a simple supposition, refers, as is frequently the case, to 
something {^assumed to be true. BMT 244. vpei<^ ^piarrov is 
assumed to have been previously affirmed or implied, and 
doubtless in ev "XpeerTm ^Irjorov or in iv Xpiarw ^Irjaov alone. 
Of these latter alternatives the second is more probable, since 
there is nothing to indicate that in this v. the apostle is intend- 
ing to carry forward the idea of the unity of believers in one 
body, or their equal standing before God, Had this been his 
purpose, he must have employed some such phraseology as 
that of I Cor. 12^^* or Rom. 12®, e. g., eh [or h aS>pa] iv 


III, 28-29 

’X.pLcrr^^ or to a&iia 'Kpicrrov, More probably, therefore, the 
genitive is to be taken, as in i Cor. 3^%* cf, vv,^^* also Rona. 

®, with its implication that those who have the spirit of 
Christ are pleasing to God, and Rom. 8 ^^* with the sugges- 
tion that believers are sharers in the possessions of Christ, 
objects of God’s love. In the words rov *A^paafx airepiia the 
apostle reverts abruptly to the thought first expressed in v.*^ 
but repeated in variant phraseology in vv.®* The prize 
which the opponents of Paul had held before the eyes of the 
Galatians, and by which they hoped to persuade them to accept 
circumcision and become subjects of the law, was the privilege 
of becoming seed of Abraham, and so heirs of the promise to 
him and to his seed. This prize, the apostle now assures the 
Galatians, belongs to them by virtue of the fact that they are 
Christ’s, as in v.'^ he had said it belongs to those who are of 
faith. In the phrase tear iTrayyeXiav KXr)pov 6 }JLoi both nouns 
are qualitative, but the substance of the thought recalls 
the previous mention of the promise and the inheritance in 
yy 14 , 16. 17 , 18, 19 , 21, 22^ omphasiscs the- aspect of Abrahamic 
sonship that is important to the apostle’s present purpose. On 
the use of KXrjpovoiKy;^ see detached note on IXiadrjKrj^ p. 503. 
The KXTjpopofiia is, doubtless, as in v.^® (g, v. and cf, v.^^), the 
blessing of justification. The absence of the article before 
(Tirdpixa is significant. Paul does not say to his readers, “Ye 
are the seed of Abraham,” as he might perhaps have done if, 
having written he wished now to identify the followers 
of Christ with Christ as the seed of Abraham. Observe, also, 
that in the preceding clause he has not said, “ye are Christ,” 
but “ye are Christ’s.” Though the article before ^A^padfx is 
restrictive, as in Rom, directing the thought to a preceding 
mention of him and probably to vv.^* yet ^nrippa^ being 
without the article, is indefinite or qualitative. It may desig- 
nate its subject as included in the seed (as distinguished from 
constituting it, which would have required the article) or, like 
viol ^A^padfx in v.^, ascribe to them the standing and privilege 
of Abrahamic seed, C/. TovSai09 Rom. 2^^* 2®. If we suppose 
that Paul wrote the reasoning is probably to this effect: 



If you belong to Christ, who is the seed of Abraham, you share 
his standing as such.’^ If is not from him the thought may 
be more akin to that of the passages cited above (i Cor. 321-23 
Rom. 81 ^' 22) . ye are Christas then by virtue of that fact you 
are objects of God’s approval,’’ which for the purposes of argu- 
ment against his opponents he translates into ‘‘seed of Abra- 
ham,” since in their vocabulary that phrase really means 
“acceptable to God.” In either case the phrase “seed of Abra- 
ham” is a synonym for objects of God’s approval; the occasion 
of its employment was its use by those whose views and argu- 
ments Paul is opposing; and the ground of its application to 
the Gentiles is in their relation to Christ. The matter of 
doubt is whether a previous designation of Christ as the seed 
of Abraham (v.i®^) furnished the ground for appljdng the term 
qualitatively to those who being in Christ are Christ’s, or the 
reasoning is independent of a previous application of the phrase 
to Christ. 

7. Continuation of the argument for the inferiority of 
the condition under law, with the use of the illus^ 
tration of guardianship (4^'’^). 

Still pursuing his purpose of persuading the Galatians that 
they would lose, not gain, by putting themselves under the law, 
Paul compares the condition under law to that of an heir who 
is placed under a guardian for a period fixed by the father and 
in that time has no freedom of action, and describes it as a 
bondage under the elements of the world. Over against this 
he sets forth the condition into which they are brought by 
Christ as that of sons of God, living in filial and joyous fellow- 
ship with God. 

"^Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs in no way 
from a slave, though he is lord of all, %ut is under gmrdians and 
stewards until the time set by the father, ^So also we, when we 
were children, were enslaved under the elements of the world, ^But 
when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his Son, born of 
woman^ made subject to law, Hhat he might deliver those that were 

m, 29-iv, 2 


under law^ that we might receive the adoption. ^And because ye 
are sons^ God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts^ 
crying^ Abba, Father. '^So that thou art no longer a slave but a 
son, and if son, then heir through God. 

1 . Be, ^€(}> oaov 0 fckr}pov6fJiO<; iariv, 

ovSev Sta<p€pec BovXov tcvpLO^ 'irdvrwv &v, 2. dWd viro hrir 
rpoTTOus earl /cal oi/copdpov<? ^XP^ 7rpo6ecrpia<^ rov 

Trarpck. ^^Now I say, so long as the heir is a child, he differs 
in no way from a slave, though he is lord of all, but is under 
guardians and stewards until the time set by the father.’’ 
Though the argument introduced in 3^2 was brought to a con- 
clusion in V.2® with a reversion to the thought of 3’', the apostle 
now takes up again the thought of the inferiority of the con- 
dition under law (note the resumptive \eyo) Se; cf. on 3^’' and 
S^®); availing himself of the familiar custom of guardianship 
and of current laws or usages concerning it, he compares the 
condition of those under law to that of an heir who in his youth 
and till a time appointed by his father, though prospective 
owner of the whole estate, is subject to guardians, and char- 
acterises it as practical slavery. The sting of the argument is 
in VTjino^, S0OX09, and iriro eircTpoTrov^ teal oi/cov6pov<^, which 
he employs to describe the condition of those under law; its 
persuasive element is in . . TrarpoV which suggests that the 
time of slavery has gone by, and men ought now to be free. 

The term xXiQpov6y.o<;, “ heir,” suggests that the illustration is taken 
from the law or custom of inheritance, the son inheriting from a de- 
ceased father (xai:g6q) under the will of the latter. Nor does this 
element of the illustration create serious incongruity between illus- 
tration and thing illustrated. For an illustration is not necessarily 
perfect at every point, and there is no decisive reason why the apostle 
should not illustrate the condition of the Jewish nation or of the human 
race in the period of law by that of a son who is under guardians await- 
ing an appointed time to take possession of the property left him by 
his father’s will; the point of the illustration lying not in the condition 
of the father, but in the relation of the son to his guardians. But 
neither does x>.Trjpov6iio? necessarily imply that in the illustration, sdll 
less in the thing illustrated, the father is dead in the period of the 
guardianship; since a guardianship may be created during the lifetime 
of the father, and the term xXif)pov4{j.o<; may be used prolepticaBy sim- 



ply to describe the son as the one who is eventually to possess the 
property. C/. x 6 ptoq TtavTeiJv o>v, and see detached note on AtaS^xTQ, 
p. 496. 

properly ‘‘one without understanding/’ is used by Greek 
writers and in the Lxx both in this sense and with the meaning “child”; 
in N. T. apparently in the latter sense (i Cor. 13“ Eph. 4^^ with the 
added implication of immaturity, intellectual or moral. No instance 
has been pointed out of its use as a technical term for a minor, a child 
not possessed of manhood’s rights, but it is evidently this characteristic 
of a child that the apostle here has specially in mind. xOpto? is used 
in the sense, rather infrequent in N. T., of “owner,” with the added 
idea of control. Cf. Mt. 20* 21^°. The participle wv is, of course, con- 
cessive. See BMT 437.8. 

The phrase €xtTp6xouq xal o^xov6EJt.ou<; has given rise to much dis- 
cussion as to the precise meaning of the words and the law which the 
apostle has in mind. The diflSculty, however, pertains not to ex('rpoxo<;. 
This is a frequent word for the guardian of a minor orphan. See Plato, 
Legg. VI 766 C: xal 6<iv 6p40£V6)v Ix^rpoxo*; Tt<;. Dem. 988®: 

to6twv ’ApfaTai^pLoc Ixftpoxot; xal xiQB6pLd)v lylveO’ bcxafSexa Httq. Xen. 
Mem. I. 2-“’: X^yetat ydcp ’AXxtPtcieBTQ'^, xplv eYxoctv Itwv elvae, IlepixXst 
extTp6x<p (JL^v SvTt lauTOu xpocncdcTn tyj? x 6X8(0<; -coideSe SiaXe^Oi^vat xepl 
v6p.(i)v. Arius Did. quoted in Mullach, Frag. Phil. Gr. II dcxb 
(piXoa'togyiaqr.aX BiaOtjxaq TsXeuTov plXXovva? StaTOsaSat, 
xal nrwv sTt xuo9opoup.4vo)v (ppovrfl^etv, lxt'cp6xoL><; dcxoXix6vTa<; xal xtqSe- 
p.6va<;, xal Trotq fuXTdcTOtq xapaTtOep-ivou?, xal xapaxaXoOvra? Ixtxoupetv 
a^'zoXq. o{xov6pLo«;, on the other hand, usually denotes a slave acting as 
house-steward for his master, or an employed steward acting as agent for 
his principal, or a treasurer. See i Ki. 4* i Esd. 4*^ Lk. i2« 16^ 
Rom. i 65 ». Paul also uses it in a figurative sense of those to whom the 
gospel is entrusted, i Cor, 4}^ *. There is no clear instance of its use 
with reference to one who has charge of the person or estate of a 
minor heir, and in particular no other instance of the use of the two 
terms lx(Tpoxo<; and olxov6p.o<; together. 

Under Roman law indeed (of a period a little later than that of Paul 
— see Sief. ad loc.j p. 234) the minor was under a tutor till his fourteenth 
year, and thereafter under a curator until his twenty-fifth year. But 
against the supposition that it was this usage that Paul had in mind is 
the fact that he adds ^pt xpoOecTpLla? toO xaTp6<;, whereas Roman 
law itself fixed the time during which the child was under the tutor 
and curator respectively. On xpoOeqxfac, a frequent legal term, see 
Dem. 95 21*; Plato, Legg. XII 954 D,* etc. Cf. Job 28® Dan. 9*« (Sym.). 
It is not found in Lxx and occurs here only in N, T. 

*Dem. 9521*: Xa/le ftoi itfu rbv irpotfco-fii'as v 6 fJiov. Plato, Legg. XII 954 D: iav 
5< Kar oIkios ev aoret ri rts r^v Trpo 0 earp.iav tlvai, idv Se kot' dypov% iv 

a^ayet KCKn^rat, StKa hrup^ idv 5* iv rov ir<ivrbf brav avevpjj ttov, 

fiiav clyot irpoSeerpLiav r^f itr^XT^etaf. 


IV, I“2 

Ramsay holds that Paul refers to the law followed in Greco-Phrygian 
dties, and cites the Syrian law book of the fifth century a. d., accord- 
ing to which the practice was the same as under the Roman law except 
that whereas under Roman law the father appointed only the tutor, 
and could not appoint the curator, under the Syrian law the father 
appointed both the eickpoxoq who, like the Roman tutor, had charge 
of the child till he reached the age of fourteen, and the curator who 
had the management of the property till the son was twenty-five years 

But aside from the fact that it is precarious to assume that the law 
found in a Syrian law book of the fifth century was in force in Phrygian 
cities in the first century, Ram. overlooks the fact that this usage is 
equally at variance with the language of Paul, who says nothing about 
who appoints the exkpoxo*; and oEx.ov6pLo<; but does indicate that the 
father fixes the time at which the son passes from under their control. 

In Greek, e. g., Athenian, law there was, so far as has been pointed 
out, no such distinction between tutor and curator or iTckpoxog and 

But the use of ItcCtpotco? xal xTQ 5 ey.(t>v in Dem. 988® as a double 
title of one person (see the passage above) suggests that we should not 
seek to distinguish between the functions of the exf-rpoxo*; and those 
of the oixov6pLo^, but regard oixov6pLo<; as PauFs s3monym for XTQBepLtiv 
and, like that word, a further description of the lx(Tpoxo<;. C/., also, 
Seneca, De BeneficiiSj Lib. IV, chap. XXVII, ad fin,: quomodo dmen- 
. tissime testabituTy qui tutorem filio reliquerit pupillorum spoliatarem: 
he makes a most mad will who leaves as tutor to his son one who 
has been a spoiler of orphans.” There remains, however, the difiSculty 

•Bruno und Sachau, Syr,-rd'm. Rechtsbuchy Leipzig, 1880. In the following translation 
courteously made from the Syriac text for this work by Professor Martin Sprengling, 
Ph.D., of the University of Chicago, eViVpoTroj and curator, have been retained as they stand 
transliterated in the Syriac text. The Syriac terms have been rendered literally because the 
English has but one term covering the functions of both classes of officers, viz., “guardian,” 
the use of which for both Syriac words would be confusing. “The law (vo/ao?) is asked: 
Can minors make a will (6ta6^Kas), and at what age can they do it? A girl up to twelve 
years is subject to the eirtTpowo^, which, being translated, is the one in command, and can 
not write a will But when she has passed twelve years, she passes from subordi- 

nation to the evtTpoTTo? and comes to be under that of the curator, which, being translated, 
is examiner. And from the time when the girl is subject to the curator, she has authority 
to make a will (SiaOrjKri). Thus also a boy, until fourteen years, is under the authority ol 
the eiriTpowos, and can not write a will But from fourteen years and upward he 

is under the authority of the curator and may write a will if he choose. But 

minors are under the. authority of the curator up to twenty-five years; and from twenty-five 
years the boy is a perfect man and the girl a full woman. If a man die and leave duldren 
orphans, and make a wiU (SiaBijKij) and appoint therein an eirtrpoTros [or curator] for the 
orphans, they do not give security. 

“ Those who by will are appointed curators, the law (pofiot) provides that they 

shall not give security, because the owners of the property chose to establish them admin- 



that we have no knowledge of a guardianship the period of which is 
fixed by the father. If, therefore, the apostle is speaking of inheri- 
tance of property from a deceased father, d3dng while the son is still a 
child, he must apparently be speaking in terms of some usage not 
otherwise definitely known to us. 

In view of this fact, recourse may be had to a guardianship estab- 
lished for special reasons during the lifetime of the father, such as is 
illustrated in the case of Antiochus Epiphanes and his son, Antiochus 
Eupator. In i Mac. 322. 33 it is stated that Antiochus Epiphanes, 
being about to go on a military expedition into Persia, left Lysias ewl 
xpaYpLciTWV voO gaatXlwq . . . %a\ vp^^stv ^Av'zloxov vbv ul?>v 
a^Tou Icog Tou a6'r6v. In i Mac. 6^^ it is said that when 

L3rsias knew that the king was dead he set up Antiochus, his son, to 
reign in his stead, whom he had brought up (e-rpeij^ev). From these 
two passages it appears that Antiochus, the father, appointed Lysias 
to be steward of the affairs of the kingdom and guardian of his son 
until a specified time, in effect directing that such stewardship and 
guardianship terminate by the resumption of authority by the father 
on his return, or by succession of his son on the father’s death. While, 
therefore, the precise terms used by Paul do not occur, equivalents of 
all three of them (lir^Tpoico?, ol)cov6pLO(;, -icpoOeapite? toO •jcoprp6(;) are 
found in the passage in i Mac. This equivalence is, moreover, some- 
what confirmed by certain passages in 2 Mac. In it is stated that 
Antiochus Eupator, irocpaXag^v t?]V ^a(jt}vs(av, dvIBei^ev 4x1 t( 5 v xpay- 
puSxciJv Auor^av, and thereafter, in 2 Mac. and 13* (cf. also 14*), 
Lysias is- referred to as lx('cpoxo<; tou gacjtX4(i)<; xocl Ixl twv xpaYtn^cTwv, 
guardian of the king and chancellor or steward.” Thus the son, on 
acquiring his throne, re-established for himself the relation which his 
father had created, and the author of 2 Mac. employs to designate the 
ofi&ce of Lysias Ixkpoxoc; xal Ixl Toiv xpaYpufcTwv, which are evidently 
nearly or quite the equivalent of Paul’s Ix^Tpoxoc xa\ olxovdp.o<;. If 
it may be supposed that these passages were before the apostle’s mind, 
or that he had in mind such a case as that of Antiochus Epiphanes and 
his son, his language would become entirely dear, as referring to the 
case of a father who during his life placed his son for special reasons 
imder the care of one who was at the same time lx{Tpoxo<; and olxov6ti.o<; 
and who was to hold that office for a period the limit of which was 
indicated by the father. The two terms would not then designate dif- 
ferent persons, but two functions of one person, and the plural would 
be a qualitative plural. It is, perhaps, also in favour of this understand- 
ing of the passage that the situations compared are alike even in the 
fact that the father, corresponding to God, is still alive in the period of 
the stewardship. Yet reference to an ordinary guardianship of a 
minor orphan, in the terms of some eaasting legal usage not definitely 

IV, 2-3 


known to us, remains a possibility. Fortunately the application of 
the illustration to the condition of men under law is but little affected 
by any uncertainty respecting the source of the illustration. 

3 , ovTCx)9 fcal ore ?iixev vtto ra tov 

k 6 (tixov TjfxeBa SeSovXco/ieW* ‘‘So also we, when we were 
children, were enslaved under the elements of the world.” 

is best understood as referring to Christians generally, 
the predicates of the sentence describing their pre-Christian 
condition. For, though the language of w.®*® is specially 
appropriate to Jewish Christians and was probably written 
with them specially in mind, as that in v.® was probably written 
with the Gentile Galatians especially in mind, yet the use of 
the same or the equivalent expressions with reference to those 
who are included under the first person, and those who 

are addressed (in the second person), together with the change 
in pronoun or the person of the verb when there is no antith- 
esis but, on the contrary, continuity of reference is required 
by the argument, shows that these grammatical changes do 
not mark a substantial change of persons denoted. Cf, 

, . . SeSovXojfJL^ot of v.® with ovKeri el S0CX09 of v.® (notice 
especially the implication of ovKeri that the persons addressed 
— the Galatians — ^had previously been in bondage), and observe 
that in v.® rou? virb vofxov (third person) are evidently the same 
who constitute the subject of mroXd^o^iiev, that in v.® is 
used of those who are the subject of the verb ecrr^, and that it 
is scarcely less clear from the nature of the argument that there 
is no real change of persons referred to (other than the change 
of emphasis above mentioned) in passing from v,® to v.®. A 
comparison of utto rh aroL'xela tov Koajxov ^ixeOa BeSovXoofjiSoi. 
of this verse with ttw iirL<TTp 4 <l>eTe m-dXiv iwl rd . . , arroL'x^ela 
oh TrdXtp dvcoOep BovXeveip OiKere of v.® points in the same 
direction, v.® clearly implying that the previous condition of 
the Galatians, as well as that to which they are now in danger 
of turning, was a bondage to the <TTOij(ela^ while v.® as dis- 
tinctly marks them as having previously been worshippers of 
idols, and 3^’® shows that they had come to faith in Christ not 
through Judaism as proselytes, but directly from their worship 



of idols. On the bearing of the phrase inro pcSjjlov on the inclu- 
siveness of 57jU€t?, see on v. For a change of person similar 
to that which takes place in passing from v.® to v.®, cf, 3^6 and 
notes there, Jews and Gentiles are therefore classed together 
as being before the coming of Christ in the childhood of the 
race, and in bondage, and the knowledge of religion which the 
Jews possessed in the law is classed with that which the Gentiles 
possessed without it under the common title, ^‘the elements of 
the world, rk crroi'yeia rov koctjjlov. On the meaning of this 
phrase, see detached note, p. 510. For a direct assertion of 
what is here implied as to the common standing of Jews and 
Gentiles as concerns possession of truth (but without reference 
to its inferiority to the Christian revelation), see Rom. 

J^D*FG. 33, 442, 463 read SeBouX.; ABCD^ «KL. most cur- 
sives Clem. Chrys. Euthal. Thdrt. read Despite the weightier ex- 

ternal evidence for ^ the strong improbability that for the common ^ 
the unusual would be substituted is decisive for the latter. 

4 . 6 t€ Se Tjkdev to TrX^Jpcojita rot) j(^p6vov^ e^airdcrreCkev o 0€O9 
Tov vlov auToO, yevopLevov e/c yvpacKo^y yevofxevov irrrb v6pix>Vy 
^^But when the fulness of the time came, God sent forth his 
Son, born of woman, made subject to law.” That the time 
of all important events, and so pre-eminently that of the com- 
ing of the Christ, was fixed in the purpose of God, was prob- 
ably a common thought of early Christianity (Mk. Jn. 2* 
etc. Acts 172® Eph. cf. Tob. 14O. It was evidently 
shared by the apostle (Rom. 3^8 5«). Whether he thought of 
the time as fixed by the necessity that certain things must 
first be accomplished, or that the world reach a certain condi- 
tion (cf, 2 Thes, 2^*), or as appointed to occur after the lapse 
of a certain definite period (cf, Dan. g^-) is not here or else- 
where in the epistles clearly indicated. Cf. Bous. Rd. d. 
Jvd.^y pp. 278^. That it was associated in his mind with 
the two ages (cf. on i^) is probable, yet the fulness of the time 
did not mark the beginning of the new age, since the former 
was past, the latter still future. The words 6 

^€09 TOP vlbv avTovj though in themselves capable of refer- 

IV, 3~4 


ring to the sending of Jesns as God’s Son out among men from 
the seclusion of his private life {cf. Acts 9^® Jn. i®) must 
yet, in view of the apostle’s belief in the pre-existence of 
Jesus, as set forth in i Cor. 8® Phil. 2®^* Col. 1®, and of the 
parallelism of v.®, be interpreted as having reference to the 
sending of the Son from his pre-existent state {iv Oeov^ 

Phil 2®) into the world. This is also confirmed by the two 
expressions that follow, both of which (see below) are evi- 
dently added to indicate the humiliation (cf, Phil. 2^* ®) to 
which the Son was in the sending forth subjected, the descent 
to the level of those whom he came to redeem. For if 
e^diriareikev referred simply to a sending forth among men, 
as a prophet is sent forth under divine commission, these ex- 
pressions would mark his condition previous to that sending 
forth, and there would be no suggestion of humiliation, but, 
rather, the contrary. Yet on the other hand, i^airecrreCkev 
need not, probably should not, be limited to the entrance into 
the world by and at birth, but should rather be understood 
as extending to, and including, the appearance of Jesus among 
men as one sent from God. On the expression rov viov auroO, 
equivalent to rbv vlov rod see detached note on Titles 
and Predicates of Jesus, V D, p. 408, for discussion of the 
evidence that the phrase here refers to the pre-existent Son and 
that it has special reference to the Son as the object of 
divine love, in the enjoyment of filial fellowship with God. 
Cf also vv. ®' The phrase yevopevov ex yvvatKck can 
not be interpreted as excluding human paternity, as some 
interpreters, both ancient and modern, have maintained (cf 
Sief. and Zahn ad loc.). See, e, g., Job 14b ^porcr; yevvrjrd^ 
yvvaiKb^, Mt. yevvrjro'is yvpaiK&v, It could be rea- 

sonably supposed to imply birth from a virgin only in case it 
were otherwise established that the apostle knew and accepted 
the dogma or narrative that Jesus was so bom, and not even 
then would it be certain that this phrase was intended to refer 
to this aspect of Jesus’ birth. But of such knowledge or 
acceptance the writings of the apostle give no hint, ywatiak 
is probably, like vdpov in the following phrase, not indefinite, 



but qualitative, and the phrase is best translated ^'bom of 
' woman.’^ On viro v 6 jjx)v^ cf, 3^. There is no occasion to take 
it here in any other sense than that which it has there, “under 
law as a system of legalism.” See note on It was from 
this subjection that Christ came to deliver men. See 5^® and 
513, 14 ^ ag showing that those who are in Christ still remain 
under law as an ethical principle. Cf, also i Cor. 9^° Rom, 6^^' 

In applying this phrase to Jesus the passage resembles Phil. 2®, 
but differs in that there it is to God and here to law that he is 
said to be subject. That Paul carried his conception of Jesus’ 
subjection to law to the point of supposing that he was in his 
own thinking a legalist is wholly improbable; the subjection to 
law was, doubtless, rather in the fact of his Hving under legal- 
istic judaism, obliged to keep its rules and conform to its usages. 
The motive for the insertion of the phrase is doubtless to em- 
phasise the cost at which the Son effected his redemptive work; 
cf. 2 Cor. SK 

Th is evidently used in the active sense, ‘‘that which fills,” 

voO xp^vou being an objective genitive; the whole period which must 
elapse before the event being incomplete till its last increment is 
added, the last moment, which fills it, is called ccXT5po)p.a. It is, in the 
language of the illustration, 'rcpoSea-p.fe nrou %axp6q (v.*). 

The words Y5v6[jLevov v6p.ov should probably be taken in the 
sense “made subject to law” rather than “bom under law,” for, 
though *]fgv6pisvov lx yuv(xw6g evidently refers to birth, that refer- 
ence is neither conveyed by, nor imparted to, the participle, but lies 
wholly in the limiting phrase. This idea is, therefore, not of necessity 
carried over into the second phrase. Had the apostle desired to ex- 
press the idea “bom” in both phrases, he could have done so un- 
ambiguously by the use of r^vvrjOivxa. Concerning the time of the 
subjection to law, whether at birth or subsequently, yevIpLevov says 
nothing dedsive. Both partidples are best understood as attributive 
partidples used substantively (BMT 423) in apposition, therefore, 
with rhv vlhv aOxou, the omission of the artide giving to eadi phrase a 
qualitative force which may be expressed in English by translating 
“his Son, one bom of woman, one made subject to law.” The employ- 
ment of the aorist presents the birth and the subjection to law as in 
each case a simple fact, and leaves the temporal relation to ISaxIoxetXev 
to be inferred solely from the nature of the facts referred to (BUT 142, 

. 143). The thought Is not very different if the partidples be taken as 

IV, 4-5 219 

adverbial participles of attendant circumstances (BMT 449, 450)- 
But the phrases are best accounted for as intended not so much to 
express the accompaniments of the sending as directly to characterise 
the Son, describing the relation to humanity and the law in which he 
performed his mission. 

6. Lva Tov^ vTTo vofxov i^ayopdarj^ ‘Hhat he might deliver 
those that were under law.^^ The phrase mb vopov is, doubt- 
less, to be taken in the same sense as in v.-* and 3^^, viz. : under 
law’’ legalistically imderstood. But while in those cases the 
context shows that the law actually referred to is the 0 . T. 
law, the context here (see above on the inclusiveness of 
in V.® and note the second person in v.®, with its unambiguous 
inclusion of the Galatian Gentiles) implies that rov^ vtto vofxop 
includes both Jews and Gentiles. That Paul conceived the 
Gentiles to possess a law, and that of divine origin, appears 
from Rom. 2^^* (cf. and though the phrase mb vopov 

is usually employed with reference to the legalism that grew 
up on Jewish soU, yet that Paid was aware that the law whose 
work is written in the heart might also be externalised and 
made legalistic is intrinsically probable and is confirmed by 
I Cor. 920, where toT? mb pofiop, standing as a middle term 
between Tot/Sa^i9 and Tot$ avopop;^ seems to designate 
those, whether Jew or Gentile, who were living under a system 
of legalism. On the use of e^a7opa^m, see on 3^®, p. 168. That 
the deliverance referred to is from the law, is implied in tou? 
vTTo vopov and the absence of any other phrase to suggest 
another enslaving power. That it is from subjection to law, 
i. e., (a) from the obligation to obey legal ordinances, and (b) 
from the conception of God which legalism implies, is shown 
as respects the former (a) by v.^o and 5^"^, and as respects the 
latter (b) by the following clause and vv.®* \ The whole clause 
expresses the purpose not of the participle yevopevop only 
and probably not of i^aTr^arecKep only, but of the whole 
assertion i^am-^a-reiXeVj with its modifiers, wherein is implied 
that his human birth and subjection to law were contributoiy 
to the achievement of the redemption. 



And tMs in turn conveys an intimation that Paul already had a 
thought akin to that expressed in Heb. with reference to the 
relation between the limitations of the earthly life of Jesus and his 
redemptive work. Yet how he conceived that the deliverance was ac- 
complished, whether as in 3” through his death, or through his life ex- 
perience reaching its climax in his death (cf. Phil. 2’* *), this verse in 
no way decides. That the apostle conceived that Jesus himself had 
passed through an experience like that of Paul, referred to by him in 
in that he also had discovered that one does not come into the 
enjoyment of a filial relation to God through obedience to statutes, 
and that this was embodied in the teaching of Jesus, is not in itself 
improbable, but is not intimated either here or elsewhere in his letters. 

ipa Tf]V vlodeciav a7roXd0o)fj£p. that we might receive the 
adoption.^^ vloOea-ia^ found in inscriptions in the phrase 
Ka6* vlodea-iav and rarely in Greek literature (Diog. Laert. 
IV 9 (53), veavLCTKCcv rcp&v vloOeo’im TroieladaL)^ does not 
occur in the Lxx and appears in N. T. only in the Pauline 
epistles. In Rom. 9^ it denotes the choice of Israel to be sons 
of God (cf. Exod. 4^ Deut 14^* ^ Hos. In Rom. 
they are said to be viol Oeov who are led by God’s Spirit, and 
it is added: ^‘For ye have not received a spirit of bondage 
again to fear, but ye have received a spirit of adoption (Trpevjjia 
vlodecrCaq) whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” In Rom. 8^3 
^ vlodecria is defined as consisting in the redemption of the 
body, doubtless because in Paul’s thought only through the 
resurrection and the clothing of the spirit in the spiritual body 
does man enter into the fulness of fellowship with God (cf. 
I Cor. 15^®* ^). In Eph. i® adoption is spoken of as that 

which men are foreordained of God to obtain through Jesus 
Christ. V vloOecrla is, therefore, for Paul, God’s reception of 
men into the relation to him of sons, objects of his love and 
enjoying his fellowship, the ultimate issue of which is the 
future life wherein they are redothed with a spiritual body; 
but the word may be used of different stages and aspects of 
this one indusive experience. The artide ri^p is, doubtless, 
restrictive, pointing to the thought of w.^* * that at the time 
appointed of the father the child is released from subjection to 
tutors and governors, and comes into direct relation to the 

IV, $-6 221 

father as a mature son — ^an intimation more fully developed 
in V.®, 

The meaning “sonship’* would satisfy most of the passages in which 
uioBsate occurs, but there is no occasion to depart from the etymologi- 
cal sense, ‘^installation as a son.” This does not, however, justify 
reading back into v.^ the idea of adoption, and from this again carrying 
it back through xXtqpov6plo<; into the Sia6*qx7j of 3“, for Paul is not 
careful to maintain the consistency of his illustrations. He employs 
here his usual term because he is speaking of the establishment of 
those who have previously not had the privileges of a son in the full 
enjoyment of them. 

Whether Tva . . . expresses the purpose of or, 

co-ordinately with that clause, expresses the purpose of i^aiciarsiXev 
is impossible to say with certainty; nor is the distinction important. 

6. "'On Se eo're vtoiy e^aTreerr^iKev 6 6eo^ to Trvevfxa rov 
vlov avTov €t? tAv /capSta? '^And because ye are sons, 

God sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts.^’ The 
clause 6rL . , , vIol is naturally interpreted as causal, giving 
the reason in the divine mind for the act e^ciTreareiXep , . . 
TjiJL&v^ there being no verb of saying or the like for it to depend 
upon as an object clause. Nor is there any suflSdent reason 
for departing from this obvious interpretation. It follows, 
however, that the sonship here spoken of being antecedent to 
and the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit is not the full, 
achieved fact, nor the consciousness of a filial relation, but the 
first and objective stage which the preceding context has em- 
phasised, viz.: release from bondage to law, figuratively de- 
scribed as a pedagogue or guardians and stewards. It is in- 
volved in this relation of sonship and the possession of the 
Spirit that from the consciousness of the latter one may infer 
the former, and it is doubtless to induce the Galatians to draw 
this inference from their consciousness of possessing the Spirit 
33-6) that this sentence was written. But the direct affir- 
mation of the sentence is that the sonship is the cause of the 
experience of the Spirit. 

To take Zxt as meaning "that,” making ? 5 Tt , , . olo( the propo- 
sition to be established, and then to supply after it "is proved by the 



fact’^ (PMKppi, following ancient interpreters), or to take 2Tt in the 
sense of quodf “as respects the fact that" (Wies.), introduces unwar- 
ranted complication into a sentence which is on its face complete and 
simple. That in Rom. ” sonship is apparently proved by posses- 
sion of the Spirit does not forbid our interpreting this passage as mak- 
ing the sonship the ground of the bestowal of the Spirit; for not only 
is the language of Rom. 8^^* open to interpretation as an argument 
from effect to cause, in which case there also adoption precedes possession 
of the Spirit, but if the reverse is true there, antecedence of sonship to the 
bestowal of the Spirit, clearly indicated in this passage, is explicable 
by the fact that ulo0eo^a (see on v.®) is used by the apostle of different 
stages of the process by which men come to the full possession of the 
relationship of sons to God, and that the context implies that it is the 
first and objective stage of which he is here speaking. 

Precisely the phrase irb xveuiia toO ulou aOi:ou does not occur else- 
where in N. T., but in Phil, Paul uses th icveu^jia 'IijcroO XpiatoQ 
and in Rom. 8®® xveOtxa XptoToG (cf, also 2 Cor. 3^^ Acts 16"^ i Pet. 
Heb. 9“ Rev. 19”). Particularly instructive is Rom. 8«* where (a) 
weijpia 6eou Iv 6pitv, (b) icveutia Xptorou Ixetv, and (c) Xpiorb? Iv 
SpLtv all express the same fact of experience. It is manifestly also the 
same experience for which Paul employs in Gal. the phrase Iv 
IpLol XptOTlg and in 5*® ^6{JLev xveGyLaTc. Historically speaking, the 
sending of the Son and the sending of the Spirit are distinguished in 
early Christian thought, most markedly so in the fourth gospel (Jn. 3^' 
7” 1 6 but note also that the coming of the Spirit is practically iden- 
tified with the return of the Son), but also in Paul {cf, the IgaTclanreiXev 
of v.^ with the same verb in this v,). The two terminologies, that of 
the Christ and that of the Spirit, have also a different origin, both, 
indeed, having their roots largely in O. T., but being there and in later 
Jewish thought quite distinct. But in the experience of the early 
Christians the Christ who by his resurrection had become a spirit 
active in their lives, and the Spirit of God similarly active, could not 
be distinguished. Cf. Burton, Spirit, Soul, and Flesh, p. 189. Pre- 
cisely to what extent this experiential identification of the heavenly 
Christ and the Spirit of God has caused a numerical identification of 
them as personalities is difScult to say. Apparently the apostle Paul, 
while dearly distinguishing Christ from God the Father (see i Cor. 8* 
Phil. 2«"«, etc.) and less sharply distinguishing the Spirit from God 
(Rom. s» 8’'* “), is not careful to distinguish the Spirit and Christ, 
yet never explidtly identifies them. Cf, Wood, The Spirit of God in 
Biblical Literaktre, pp. 229-231. The choice of xh -jcveatjux tou ulou 
ccGirou for this passage in preference to any df its equivalents is due, on 
the one side to the necessity of distinguishing the fact referred to from 
the historic coming of the Chri^ (4*), which exdudes xhv olbv aGnroQ 


IV, 6 

and XptcT6v, and on the other to the desire to connect this experience 
closely with the gift of Christ, which excludes irb ocveupia or 'tb icveOpia 


On ek Tofef; %apbfa<; fitJ.ojv, added to emphasise the transition from 
the objective sonship to the subjective experience, sec Rom. 5® i Cor. 
2’* Eph. It is in the heart, as the seat of intellectual and spiritual 
life in general (r Cor. 2» Rom. lo*, etc.) and in particular of the moral 
and spiritual life (2 Cor. 4® Rom. !“• ^4)^ that the Spirit of God operates. 
The use of the expression here shows that eSax^otetXev refers (not as 
the same word in v.< does) to a single historic fact (the day of Pente- 
cost, e. g,), but to the successive bestowals of the Spirit on individuals 
(c/. 3®), the aor. being, therefore, a collective historical aor. (BMT 39). 
On the translation of an aor. in such a case, see BMT 46, 52. On 
undoubtedly to be preferred to a Western and Syrian reading, see 
on v.K 

Kpd^ov ^A/ 3 j 3 a 0 irarrjp. ^‘cr3dng, Abba, Father.’^ The rec- 
ognition of God as Father is the distinguishing mark of the 
filial spirit. The participle Kpa^ov agreeing with TrvevpLa as- 
cribes the cry to the Spirit of God’s Son; yet it is undoubtedly 
the apostle’s thought that it is the expression of the believer’s 
attitude also. For the Spirit that dwells in us dominates our 
lives. See chap. 2^0 525^ and cf. Rom. 8^®: iKd^ere mvevp^a 
vlodecria^^ ip S Kpa^opev ’AjSjSa 0 irarrjp. The use of Kpd^op^ 
usually employed of a loud or earnest cry (Mt. 9*^ Acts 14^^ 
Rom. 9^7) or of a public announcement (Jn. 7=8. 37)^ 
often of prayer addressed to God (Ps. 3® 107^®), emphasises the 
earnestness and intensity of the utterance of the Spirit within 
us. Though the word Kpd^ov itself conveys no suggestion of 
joy, it can hardly be doubted that the intensity which the word 
reflects is in this case to be conceived of as the intensity of joy. 
Though to be free from law is to obtain adoption, sonship in 
its full realisation is more than mere freedom from law. The 
significance of such freedom lies, indeed, precisely in the fact 
that it makes it possible that a truly filial relation and attitude 
of man to God shall displace the legal relation that law creates, 
that instead of our looking upon God as lawgiver in the spirit 
of bondage and fear (Rom. 8^®) he becomes to us Father with 
whom we live in fellowship as his sons. See detached note on 
IlarTjp as applied to God, p. 391. 



*0 irocx^p, Greek equivalent of the Aramaic is a nomi- 

native form with vocative force. Cf. Rom. 8^5 Mk. 14=*® Mt, ii*« Jn. 
2o®«; Bl. D. 147.3. The repetition of the idea in Aramaic and Greek 
form gives added solemnity to the expression, and doubtless reflects a 
more or less common usage of the early church (see Mk. 143® Rom. 8 «). 
On the origin of this usage, see Th. u. ’Aggti, Ltft. ad loc., Sief. ad loc. 
It is quite likely that the use of the Aramaic word was derived from 
Jesus, being taken up into the vocabulary of Greek-speaking Christians 
through the medium of those who, knowing both Aramaic and Greek, 
in reporting in Greek the words of Jesus used this word with a sort of 
affectionate fondness for the very term that Jesus himself had used to 
express an idea of capital importance in his teaching. This is more 
probable than that it was taken over into the Christian vocabulary 
from that of the Jewish synagogue in which the idea of God as Father 
had so much less prominent place than in the thought and teaching of 
Jesus. See Bous. ReL d. Jud.^ pp. 432-3, 434; Dah WJ, p. 192. 
The attachment of the Greek translation h •xar-f^p to the Aramaic word 
would naturally take place on the passage of the term into Greek- 
speaking circles. 

7 . (Scrre ov/ceVt ec S0VX09 aXXa vio9* that thou art no 
longer a slave, but a son.^^ In the possession of the Spirit 
of God’s Son, assumed to be known as a fact of the experience 
of the readers (c/, 32), the apostle finds confirmation of the 
care vloc of v.®, as there the sonship is said to be the ground 
for the bestowal of the Spirit. That the emphasis of sonship 
is still upon the fact of freedom from bondage to law is shown 
in the insertion of the negative oif/cen SouAo?, and that those 
addressed were formerly in this bondage is implied in ovKirt, 
The change from plural to singular has the effect of bringing 
the matter home to each individual reader; the persons desig- 
nated remaining, of course, unchanged. C/. 6^, and for classical 
examples, see Kiihner-Gerth, 371.5, b. 

ei Si vld^y Kal KXTjpovdjio^ Bed, 0€OVj ^‘and if son, then heir 
through God,” That here as throughout the passage vioV 
means vlo^ 0 eov needs no specific proof; it is sufficiently indi- 
cated in the expression rod vlov avrov in w. and the rela- 
tion of this expression to vlch. This obviously suggests that 
KXrjpovdfxo^ means KKT]povdpx)^ 0 eov, Cf. Rom. 8^^ : el Si reKva, 
Kal KXrjpopdpor KXijpovdpot piv 0 €ov^ crvvKXTjpovdpoi Si ^ptarov. 


IV, 6-7 

To this conception the phrase Sc^ deov adds the thought, 
“made so by God,” thus equivalent to fcar^ deXTjua deov; cf. 
329^ KXrjpovofxoL Kar eTvayyeXlav, The purpose of the addition 
is perhaps to remind the Galatians that their position as heirs 
is due to divine grace, not one of right or desert, but more 
probably to emphasise the certainty of their possession of it. 
The absence of the article before 6 eov makes the noim not 
indefinite but qualitative, emphasising the divineness of the 
one through whom they were made heir. Cf. on v.^. The 
reversion to the thought of the Kkr]povoiiCcL expressed in 3^®* 29 
shows that the apostle has not lost sight of his main purpose 
throughout this and the preceding chapter, viz., to convince 
the Galatians that it was not through law but through the 
retention of their freedom from it that they could obtain the 
blessings promised to the sons of Abraham, which the judaisers 
had held before their eyes as a prize greatly to be desired but 
obtainable only through circumcision. The appeal of the apos- 
tle is to retain the status they already possess. Cf. v.®, “ye 
are sons,” and v.®, “how turn ye back?” That he should not 
here employ the term viol *A/ 3 paa/t, as in 3^, but ic\ripov 6 ixoi^ as 
in 3^®, is natural, not only because kX 7 jpov 6 im)i, more distinctly 
suggests the idea of the blessing to be received, but also because 
after vlot' meaning sons of God, sons of Abraham would have 
the effect of an anticlimax. KXrjpovopoL should, therefore, be 
taken here in the sense, heirs of God, and as such recipients 
of the blessing promised to Abraham’s seed; this blessing has 
already been defined as justification, acceptance with God, 
possession of the Spirit. Cf. 3^-^^ It is, moreover, as present 
possessors of the KX'rjpovopla that they are KXrjpoyopoL, That 
other blessings are in store for them is undoubtedly a Pauline 
thought (Rom. 5“ and that the conception of the 

KXripov 6 p<yi easily lends itself to the presentation of this phase 
of the matter, that which has been received being thought of 
as simply the earnest and first-fruit of the full blessing (see 
Rom. 8^^"^ Eph. is also true. But the Galatians already 
possess the promised Spirit, and the emphasis in this context is 
upon that which is already possessed, with no clear indication 
that the thought goes beyond that. 



Against the supposition — at first sight most natural — that the term 
as here used is intended to carry the thought back specifically to 
in v.^ is the fact that xXiQpov6iJi.o<; is there applied to one 
who not having yet entered into possession of his is in the 

position of and SouXo?, precisely that position, therefore, which 

it is the purpose of this v, to deny; and, though the title x>.tqpov6plo? 
carries with it the idea of future release from the status of SoOXo<;, the 
contention of the apostle is here not that the Galatians will be, but 
already are, sons and no longer slaves. It is more probable, therefore, 
that by this word he reverts for the moment to the idea of xXTQpov6tJLot 

3** (cf*, also, 3^«)) according to the promise made to Abraham, 
i. e,, possessors of the blessing promised to Abraham and to his seed. 
This is not to take xXt3pov6plo^ as meaning heir of Abraham, a predicate 
which the apostle never applies to Christians. They are indeed called 
“sons of Abraham,*^ because it is to the seed of Abraham that the 
promise applies, but it is God who established the and makes 

the iT:(xyytX(<Xj and they to whom the promise is fulfilled are his 
x>.i(]pov6p.ot. Cf, on 3^® and detached note on AiaSi^xiQ, p. 496. This 
also makes it evident that the term xXTjpov6pi.o«; is not used in its strict 
sense of heir, i. e., recipient of the property of another who has died, or 
prospective recipient of the property of another when he shall have 
died, but, tropically, possessor of a promised possession. 

The fact that xXTQpov6piot here means heirs of God, and the deduc- 
tion of hdrship from sonship, itself inferred from an act of adoption, 
ulo6ea(a, gives a certain colour of support to Ramsay^s view that the 
3 ta 6 i^xTj of 31®^* is not a covenant but a will, and specifically a will in- 
volving the adoption of a son. If the language of 3“®- were harmonious 
with these suggestions of the present passage, the latter would fall in 
with that passage as part of an illustration consistently carried through 
the whole passage. But (i) the possibility of interpreting this phrase 
in the way above suggested is not sufficient ground for setting aside 
the strong counter-evidence that by StaSijxtj he means not a will, but 
a covenant. Even if the expression here employed could be showm to 
involve the idea of adoption by will and inheritance as an adopted son, 
this would only show that the apostle is now illustrating the spiritual 
relations which are the real subject of his thought by a different group 
of facts of common life from those which he employed in 315^* But 
(2) it is improbable that it is specifically an adoptive sonship that the 
apostle has in mind in el ul6^. For, though he represents the son- 
ship of the Galatians in common with other believers as acquired by 
adoption, yet the fact of adoption is nowhere emphasised, and in the 
actual spiritual realm that which is illustratively called adoption car- 
ries with it, as a consequence, the bestowal of the Spirit of God^s Son, 
by which, it is implied, those who are sons come into like relation to 


IV, 7-8 

God with that which the Son himself sustains. The conception of 
adoption, accordingly, falls into the background, leaving simply that 
of sonship. 

8. Description of the former condition of the Galatians 
as one of bondage to gods not really such, and ex- 
hortation to them not to return to that state 

Again directly addressing the Galatians as iii 3 ^ and as in 
v.i characterising their former condition as one of enslavement, 
the apostle describes them as in bondage to gods that were not 
in reality such, and appeals to them, now that they have come 
into fellowship with God, not, as they threaten to do by their 
adoption of the Jewish cycle of feasts and fasts, to return to 
those weak and beggarly rudimentary teachings under which 
they formerly were, and expresses his fear that he has laboured 
over them to no purpose. 

^But at that time, not knowing God, ye were in bondage to the gods 
that are not such by nature. ^But now having come to know God, 
or rather having become known . by God, how is it that ye are 
turning back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which 
ye wish to be in bondage again? ^^Ye are observing days and 
months and seasons and years. fear that in vain have I spent 
my labour on you. 

8, ’AXXa Tore ixev ovk dBoreg ddv eSovXevcrare rol? 
fxi} ov<n deois* '^But at that time, not knowing God, ye were 
in bondage to the gods that are not such by nature.^’ Doub- 
ling, so to speak, upon his course, the apostle reverts to the 
condition of the Galatians before they received his message, 
and in antithesis (aWa) to the description of them in v."^ as 
heirs through God, describes them as having been in that former 
time ignorant of God who is in reality such, and in bondage 
to the gods that by nature are not gods. The purpose of this v. 
appears in v.®, where he again dissuades them from returning 
to the state of bondage. That Paul conceived of the deities 
whom the Galatians formerly worshipped as real existences, is 
neither proved nor disproved by this sentence, in which he 
denies to them deity, 6€c6tt)^^ but neither affirms nor denies 



existence; nor by the phrase enTpoTrois; Kal olKovopoi^^ in v. 2, 
since that may be used only by way of rhetorical personification 
of the law and have no reference to the gods of the Gentiles 
(cf. on ra arot^x^la rod Kocrpov, v.^) ; but that he did so conceive 
of them is rendered probable by the evidence of i Cor. ® 
10^’’ 20 Col. 2^®. C/. also Deut. 4^® and see literature cited in 
special note on TA aroLX^ia rod Koapov^ p. 510. 

T6tc refers to the past time implied in oOxItti (v.O, when the Gala- 
tian Christians were still Bou>.ot; note the ISouXe6(jaTe of this sen- 

E{86Te<; is a perfect participle of existing state, tt-?) eiS^Te? meaning 
“not possessing knowledge.” How this state of ignorance came about 
is not here discussed, or whether it was partial or absolute. Cf. Rom. 

The omission of the article with 6e6v makes the word not indef- 
inite (as in Acts 12” i Cor. 8*), but, as in v.^ and very often, quali- 
tative, referring definitely to the one God, but with an emphasis on 
his attributes as God, which is lacking when he is called 6 0 e 6 ?. 
For a similar use of 6e6<;, with strong emphasis on the qualities of 
deity, see Jn. i^®, 0ebv o 08 sl«; id^paxev xc^Tcote, where the contrast, 
however, is not between one in reality God, as compared with those 
not really such, but between God in the absolute sense, incapable of 
being directly known, and God as revealed in the person of the Son. 
For other examples of this indubitable, though often overlooked, 
qualitative use of personal appellations without the article, see Rom. 
I*': yv6vt 8<; xbv Oebv 6sbv sSbSo^av. Rom. 8*® Gal. 3^® 4}* 5*1 

Phil. 2“ I Thes. i»: iTceoTpItpaTe -iupb<; xbv 6ebv dcTcb twv eiSc&Xwv 8ouXe6stv 
6e^ ^(ovTt xal dcXT]6cv^. 2 Thes. 2*, Other examples more or less clear, 
but together clearly establishing the usage, are very numerous. See 
note on chap. 2«, pp. 88 jf., detached note on IlaTilip as applied to Godj 
p. 384, and Slaten, Qualitative Nouns in the 'Pauline Epistles ^ pp. 64-68. 

'E8ouXe6aaTe is a simple historical aorist, not inceptive, referring not 
to a point of time but to a period, "BMT 38, 39, 41 Rem. 

from qjOo), is properly that which belongs to a person or thing 
by virtue of its origin; then its essential character; used thus even of 
the divine nature, which is without origin, 2 Pet. 1*. yOaet o 5 ai 
may be an adjective element limiting 6eotg, or o 5 at may be an adjec- 
tive participle used substantively, with 6eot<; as a predicate after it. 
In the former case the beings referred to are characterised as gods, 
but with the qualification that they are not so by nature, i. e., in real- 
ity; in the latter case they are not called 0eo< at all, hut are character- 
ised negatively only, as beings that by nature are not gods. Gram- 


IV, 8-9 

matically and contextually there is no ground of decisive choice 
between these, but i Cor. 8®, showing that Paul could apply the term 
6eo{ to the gods of the Gentiles, though denying that it really belonged 
to them, favours the first interpretation. The comparison of Plato, 
Legg, X 904 A, ol xard v^yi-ov Svirsq 0eo(, perhaps suggests what the 
positive element of the apostle^s thought was. He was speaking of 
‘*the gods of popular opinion,” as Jowett translates Plato's phrase, 
Cf. I Cor. 8®, 0so(. 

On 06 with s 186 ts(; and with o 5 ot, see BJkfr 485; the choice of 
negatives, though doubtless unconscious, probably reflects the feeling 
that oDx s?86Tef; expressed a fact, 'cot(; 4>6aet pi) oSatv 0eot9 a conception, 
a description of a class, but without implication of its existence or non- 
existence. The few instances in which Paul uses o 5 with an attributive 
participle are quotations from the Lxx, his otherwise regular habit 
being to use piti with such participles and with adverbial participles 
not involving a direct assertion (Rom. 2^^ 41’' Gal. 6®). 0^, with the 
possible exception of Col. 21®, in effect negatives an assertion (i Cor. 
41* 9*« 2 Cor. 4« 12*). 

9. vvv Bk yv6vT€^ deoVy jjlSXKov Bk yvi^cdevre; vtto 0€Ot}, 
“But now having come to know God, or rather to be known 
by God,” Their coming to know God is manifestly through 
the apostle’s preaching. CJ. i Thes. i®: 'ttw eTrecrrp^are 
rov 6 €ov airb tS>p elBcoKcjjv BovXeveiv ^covrij language 
which, as the evidence of this epistle shows, might have been 
addressed to the Galatians also. That yvw(xd 4 vrei as here 
used can not refer simply to knowledge in a purely theoretic or 
intellectual sense is evident, since the apostle must have regarded 
such knowledge as always, not simply now {vvv in contrast with 
Tore), possessed by God. For the meaning required here, “hav- 
ing become objects of his favourable attention,” cf. Ps. i® 
Nah. I Cor, 8^ Mt. 7^®, and on the thought of God receiving 
the Gentiles into a favour not previously enjoyed by them, see 
Rom. 9^®/- II®®. This fact respecting Gentiles in general the 
apostle conceived to be realised in respect to the Galatians in 
particular through his preaching the gospel to them in accord- 
ance with his commission as apostle to the Gentiles. The pur- 
pose of this added phrase, in a sense displacing the previous 
yvdvre;, etc., is doubtless to remind the Galatians that it is 
not to themselves but to God that they owe their knowledge of 



liirrt and escape from idolatry (c/. chap, i®: awb 

rov KoXecravTo^i vixas iv Xpto'rov, and Eph. 2®), and so 

to emphasise the folly and wrong of abandoning this advantage 
through another iTncTTpe^eLv, 

Though ycv( 5 c)C(i) does not always retain its inchoative force (see 
Th. s. V,) even in the aorist, yet this is often clearly discernible (cf. 
Lk. 24“ I Cor. 1 21), and the aorist participle in particular always, ap- 
parently, retains this meaning, signifying either “having learned, hav- 
ing come to know,’^ or “knowing” (result of having come to know), not 
“having known.” See Mt. i6» 22” 261“ Mk. 6*8 154® Lk. 9“ Jn. s* Acts 
23* Rom. 1*1 2 Cor. 5*1 Gal. 2*. By Yv6vcec there is, therefore, affirmed 
the acquisition of that knowledge the former possession of which is 
denied in o6x. 6iS6'rs<;. Of any other distinction between eB6Te<; and 
Yv6vc 6C, as, e. g., that the former denotes an external knowledge that 
’ God is, the latter an inner recognition of God, there is no basis in 
usage or warrant in the context. The absence of the article with 6e6v 
is not without significance {cf. Rom. yv 6 yze<; Tbv 0e6v. i Cor. 
o6x ^ xdatio? . . . vbv 6e6v), being doubtless due to the same 
cause that led to the omission of the article in v.® (q. ».), viz., emphasis 
upon the qualities of deity in antithesis to the ^^ast 8vi:8<; GsoC 
Cf. 1 Thes. 18 quoted above, noting xbv 6e6v in the first mention of 
God, and 8e^ without the article when the word follows the mention 
of the idols and with emphasis on the qualities of true deity. One 
might imperfectly reproduce the effect in English by reading with 
strong emphasis on the word God. But now having come to know [a] 
God (not those that are no real gods). 

MaXXov 54 , following a negative phrase, introduces and emphasises 
its positive correlate (Eph. 4** 5**); following a positive expression it 
introduces an additional and more important fact or aspect of the mat- 
ter, not thereby retracting what precedes (probably not even in Wisd. 
8*®, certainly not in Rom. 8** i Cor, 141* ' 2 Mac. 6®*), but so transferring 
the emphasis to the added fact or aspect as being of superior signifi- 
cance as in effect to displace the preceding thought. So dearly here, 
as in Rom. 8**, etc. 

ttS? ewi<rrp4^eT€ irdkiv eirl rh atrdevfj Kal ttcox^ crrot%€?a, 
oh TToKf^v avoodey Boi/keveiv OeXere* ^‘how is it that ye are turn- 
ing back again to the weak and beggarly rudiments, to which ye 
wish to be in bondage again The question is rhetorical, in- 
tended to set forth the absurdity of the action referred to. On 
the use of xw in such questions, meaning '‘how is it possible 

IV, 9 


that/^ see chap. 2^* Rom. 3® 6^ Mt. 7^ 12^^^ 29^ yreg. The pres- 
ent tense presents the action as already in progress. (Observe 
that in the examples cited, when a theoretical possibility is 
spoken of the tense is a future or a form referring to the future, 
but in chap. 2^^ it is a present, referring, as in this case, to some- 
thing in progress.) This corresponds with the representation of 
the situation in Galatia given in i®: 6 av/xd^o) 6 ri . , . fxerarid^ade. 
Cf. also deXere in next clause. The phrase rd dcrdev^ koX 
aroL'^eta manifestly refers to what v.® calls rd aroi^eta rod 
KocTfiov; see on that v., and detached note, p. 510. The present 
expression emphasises the ineffectualness and poverty of the 
old religious systems in contrast with the power and richness 
of the gospel. See chap. 56* Rom. \ It is, of course, 
that to which they were now turning that is specially in mind, 
yet the former heathenism, included under the arroLy^ela by 
implication of the repeated TvdXiv^ is also thereby stigmatised 
as dadev^ Kal Tcrtj^y^d, Both were at bottom legalistic, without 
clear perception of ethical principles and destitute of dynamic 
to make possible the realisation of them in life. What the 
apostle says in Rom. 8® of the law, 0 j'ojuo?, is affirmed of it, not 
because of anything peculiar to it as distinguished from the 
still more imperfect ethnic systems, but because of that which 
was common to them both, and his usual term for the displaced 
system is not 6 z'ojuo9, but J'ojuo 9 (see, e, g., chap, 3^' Rom. 

2ia^ etc.). The word ddXere in the appended relative clause 
expresses forcibly the inclination of the Galatians to abandon 
the Pauline gospel. C/, 6 iXx)vre$^ v.^i, 

AouXeOaott is attested by KB only; all other authorities apparently 
read BouXIuetv. The former is quite certainly a modification of the 
original text under the influence of x<iXtv (5fvci)6ev, which naturally 
calls for an inceptive form. The scribe missing the reference of the 
present to a second period of enslavement, substitutes the aorist to 
express the idea of a return to bondage, xdXtv dv(i>6ev BouXeOaai 
would have furnished no temptation to change it. 

IldXiv originally meaning ‘‘back^^ (return to a previous position; qf. 
L. & S. and Th. s, i>. and refit, there) but more commonly, in later Greek, 
“again” (repetition of a previous action) is often used when the repe- 
tition involves return to a previous state or position (Mk. 3 ^ 3 O; but 



also (like the English again”) when the action is a return to a pre- 
vious state through reversal, not, strictly speaking, repetition. So in 
chap, Jn. Rom. So also here, since there had been no 

previous exiorpiipstv exl Trd . . . CTOt^eta, but only an elvat 5xb Td 
CTOtxeta, and the contemplated Ixtatpi^pstv was not a repetition of a 
previous act but a reversal of the exicrrpi^etv xpbg vbv 6 e 6 v (cf. i Thes. 
1 9), here described in 666 v. Wieseler’s statement, ‘^Das 

xcJcXty, welches hier wiederum, nicht riickwarts, heisst, weist auf eine 
friihere Bekehrung (Ixtairpo^iQ) hin, namlich auf die ihrem, v.« erw^hn- 
ten Heidenthume gegeniiber in dem vuv u. s. w. angedeutete Bekeh- 
rung von den Gotzen (IxsaTpo^^ dxb Toiv eEBtiXtiJv) zu Gott in Christo,” 
escapes self-contradiction only by the expedient of supposing xdXiv 
to apply to IxiuTp^^sTe only, not to Ixtatpl^sTe Ixl . . . cTot%eta, 
an interpretation which would require us to read: '‘How turn ye again, 
this time to the weak and beggarly rudiments ? ” The view, moreover, 
in support of which he resorts to this difficult expedient, viz., that Paul 
does not include the former heathenism of the Galatians under -cd . . . 
cToexeta compels him further to limit the ejffect of x<iXtv ^woOev in 
the next clause to $ou>.e 6 etv, reading in effect, “to which ye desire to 
be in bondage, this constituting for you a second bondage.” Such a 
harsh severance of verb and adverb in two successive clauses is not 
demanded by the usage of xAXtv and is, in fact, self-refuting. The 
obvious and unescapable implication of the language is that the con- 
version to ird: . . • oTocxeta is a return to a state generically the same 
as the idol-worship under which they formerly were. Against this it is 
irrdevant to point out that lxiaTpi(i)etv does not mean “return” but 
only “turn,” since the idea of reversal is expressed in the adverb. The 
expression xAXiv 5:v(i)9ev BouXeOetv is pregnant, the adverb suggesting 
a renewed enslavement and the present tense of the infinitive a con- 
tinued state; hence in effect again to become enslaved and to continue 
so, or to endure a second period of enslavement. SouXeuaac would 
probably be inceptive. xdXtv, then, in this case expresses repetition 
rather than, as in the preceding clause, reversal, though, as in many 
other cases (Mk. 2 ^ 3 b etc.), the repetition involves also return to a 
former position. Cf. 5 ^. It is enforced by the nearly s 3 mon 3 nnous <5fvw6ev 
“anew.” It is probably an overrefinement to find in this use of the 
two words (cf. Wisd. ig®) an 3 rthing more than emphasis, such as is 
often expressed in Greek writers by a30t^, dfvcoOev, etc. 

10 * r}ixipwi TrapaTTfpetc^de Kal pfjvwi Kal Kaipoit^ Kal ipiav^^ 
Tov?, “Ye are observing days and months and seasons and 
years.^’ That the days, etc., referred to are those which the 
Jewish law required to be observed is made certain by the 

IV, g-io 


unquestioned character of the influence to which the Galatians 
were yielding. See esp. v3h Compared with 5^-, in which 
it appears that the question of adopting circumcision was still 
pending, and 5^ which indicates that the Galatians had not yet 
been asked to adopt the whole law, this sentence indicates that 
the judaisers had pursued the adroit course of presenting to 
them at first a part only of the requirements of the Jewish law 
and had begun with those things that would be least repulsive. 
Having secured the adoption of the festivals, and perhaps the 
fast“days, of the Jewish cycle, they were now urging circum- 
cision. Whether, however, the feasts and fasts were all that 
the Galatians had adopted as yet, is not made clear, since the 
apostle may have mentioned these only as examples of their 
subjection to the law. But the silence of the letter about any 
statute of the law except circumcision, which they had not yet 
adopted, and the fasts and feasts, which they had, there being, 
for example, no mention in connection with the situation in 
Galatia of the law of foods, leaves no positive ground for sup- 
posing that any points except these had been raised. 

On xapaTTfjpstffOe, observe, keep religiously,^’ cf. Jos. Ant. 3. 91 
(5®): xapaTTjpetv xdcq 14. 264 xapaTiQpetv t(Sv 

aapgciTcov fjpipav. Contra Ap. 2. 282 (39, Whiston 40): Iv i0vog 

Iv0a , . , xoXXd tc5v efq ppwdtv oO vevopLccrpL^wov xapaTSTiQpTQTat. No- 
where in the Lxx does the word appear with this meaning, and in 
non-bibiical writers instances have been observed only in Dion Cassius, 
38. 13, tA ex Tou oCpavou xapaTiQpetv. It occurs here only in 

N, T. in this sense, TnQpetv being used in Mt. 19^^ Jn. 8“ Acts is**, etc.; 
<f)uX( 5 :cr(jetv in Mt. 1920 Lk. Acts 7®® Rom. 2*® Gal. etc. 

’Hpiipai; probably refers primarily to the sabbath days, but includes 
also the feasts, which are observed each on a single day. 

Mi) vac, strictly months,” may be used by metonymy for monthly 
recurring events {cj. Isa. 66«). If used in the strict sense, the word 
probably refers to the seventh month (see Num., chap. 29), for, though 
there were feasts in other months, no other month was so occupied 
with celebrations that it itself could be said to be observed. But it is 
more likely that the reference is to the celebration of the appearance 
of the new moon which marked the beginning of the month, this being 
in a sense an observance of the month. See Num. lo^o 28“; cf. i Chron. 

CoL 21". 

E[«tpo6c, in itself indefinite as to either length or frequency of cele- 



bration, probably here refers to a class of celebrations not limited to a 
single day, thus to the great feasts, Passover, Tabernacles, etc. (see 
2 Chron. 8^*, ev xolq xal ev ynrjglv xal ev lalQ eoprat?, Tp£t<; 

xatpo^g Tou IvtaoToO, Iv eopTfj di^(jpL6>v, ev eopT^ Tdiv IpBopuiStov, 
Iv TB eop^ ttov cxTjvfiiv), or to these and the fasts of the fourth and fifth 
and seventh and tenth months. See Zech. 

*EvtauTo6?, ^^years,^* may refer to the year of Jubilee or the sabbati- 
cal year. So Ell. Ltft. et al.y esp. Barton (JBL, XXXIH, ii8 j^.), who, 
referring it to the sabbatical year, founds on this interpretation an 
argument for the dating of the epistle in the year 54 or 55 a. d., this in 
turn cariying with it the conclusion that the letter was written to 
churches in North Galatia, so called. The doubt of Benzinger (Encyc. 
Bib. II 1514) whether these year-long celebrations were ever ^tuaUy 
observed is perhaps scarcely justified in view of i Mac. Jos. Ant. 
13. 234 ( 80 , 14. 475 (ifiO; I* 60 (^O* But in view of the fact 
which the episde clearly shows, that the Galatians had not yet under- 
taken to keep the whole law, not even having at all generally accepted 
circumcision (cf. on 41 5*), it must be regarded as very improbable that 
among the requirements of the law already adopted was a custom eco- 
nomically so burdensome and socially so difiScult as the sabbatical 
year. It is, therefore, much more probable that, as he speaks of the 
observance of the new moon as an observance of months, so by the 
observance of years he means the celebration of the beginning of the 
year, probably on the first of the month Tishri. Against this view 
Barton urges it as a fatal objection that since the Talmud includes 
New Year’s Day among the great festivals and calls these by a word 
equivalent to xaipof, therefore Paul’s Ivtau-uo^q, if it refers to New 
Year’s Day, has already been included in xacpo6<; (see Barton, op. cit.y 
p. 120). But it is quite unsafe to argue that because the Talmud in- 
cludes New Year’s Day among the great feasts, therefore Paul included 
it in the xottpof. Moreover, non-exclusiveness of his terms is in itself 
not improbable. Formal exactness in such matters is not character- 
istic of Paul. It is, indeed, most likely that, as used here, is 
included in f)iA 4 pag, and IvtauToOc in xatpo6<; or the four terms 

without mutual exclusiveness covering all kinds of celebrations of days 
and periods observed by the Jews. 

11. ^jSov/xat vfxwi fjLi] TTW elK^ KeKoriaKa eU vfxa^. fear 
that in vain have I spent my labour upon you,” i. e., that the 
labour which I bestowed on you is to result in nothing. A 
paratactically added expression of the apostle^s feeling in view 
of the tendency of the Galatians to adopt legalistic practices, 
which clearly indicates his estimate of the deadly character of 

IV, lo-ir 


legalism. Should they really come under its dominion, his 
labour would have been for naught. For the expression of the 
more hopeful feeling, between which and that of fear of the out- 
come expressed here the letter swings, see 5^°. 

‘YtJux? is best regarded as proleptically employed, not properly an 
object of (popoO(xai, but anticipating the 5^dc; in the subordinate 
clause. Cf, W. LXVI 5, and such N. T. examples as Mk. 12H Acts 13“* 
Gal. i“. It is true that as a rule the object accusative anticipates 
the subject of the subordinate clause. But that this is not uniformly 
the case, see Kruger, Sprachl, 61, 6«, and the example there dted: 
T-^jv v^aov 'ca6'C7]v l(popouvco {ifj 1$ aiiijc ‘tbv a<pfat Tcotoivirae, 

Thnc. 4. 8®. tJLfi xsxoic^oexa is then an object clause after a verb of 
fearing. The indicative is employed because the fact spoken of is, as 
an event, already past, though the result is undecided or not yet 
known to the writer. See BMT 227, and cf, on chap. 2*. On eixj 
cf. 3^ The meaning here is evidently ^‘without effect.’' The perfect 
xsxoxfaxa, referring to a past action and its existing result, is appro- 
priately employed, since it is precisely the result of his action that the 
apostle has chiefly in mind. eE? 6pd<; is equivalent to a strengthened 
dative of advantage, ^'for you.” 

g. An affectionate appeal to the Galatians to enter fully 
into their freedom from law, referring to their former 
enthusiastic reception of the apostle and affection 
for him, and expressing the wish that he were now 
with them and could speak to them in more per^ 
suasive language than he had formerly used (4^2-2°). 

Dropping argument, the resumption of which in is 

probably an after-thought, the apostle turns to appeal, begging 
the Galatians to take his attitude towards the law, referring to 
the circumstances under which he had preached the gospel to 
them, and the enthusiasm and personal affection with which, 
despite an illness which made him unattractive to them, they 
had received him and his message. He compares his own 
zealous pursuit of them with that of his opponents, justifying 
his by its motive, but expresses, also, the wish that he could be 
present with them right now and speak in a different tone 
from that, by implication harsher one, which he had employed 
on some previous occasion when he had “told them the truth.’^ 



^^Becofne as I am {or have become), because I am as ye are, I 
beseech you, brethren. ^^Ye did me no wrong, but ye know that 
because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached the gospel to you on 
that former occasion; ^^and that which was a temptation to you in 
my flesh, ye did not reject or despise, but ye received me as an angel 
of God, as Christ Jesus. ^Where, then, is that graMation of your- 
selves? For I bear you witness that ye would, if possible, have 
plucked out your eyes and given them to me. ^^So that I have be- 
come your enemy by telling you the truth I ^"^They zealously seek 
you, not honestly, but wish to shut you out that ye may seek them. 
^^But it is good to be zealously sought after in a good thing, always, 
and not only when I am present with you, "^^oh, my children, with 
whom I travail again in birth pangs till Christ be formed in you. 
^^But I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my 
tone ; because I am in perplexity in reference to you. 

12 . Vlvecrde m iyo), 6ri Kayco vjieXf;, aBeXcpoi, heojiai 
vjji&p. ^‘Become as I am (or have become), because I am as 
ye are, I beseech you, brethren/’ With this sentence the 
apostle, under the influence, probably, of the fear expressed in 
v/b turns from argument to entreaty and appeals to the feel- 
ings of the Galatians. Cf. the similar manner of approach in 
3^”®, and notice here the affectionate aSeX(f)oC (cf. on 
the use of BSfxat, entreat.” The entreaty itself is enigmati- 
cal and paradoxical. Yet its meaning can scarcely be doubtful. 
The apostle desires the Galatians to emancipate themselves 
from bondage to law, as he had done, and appeals to them to 
do this on the ground that he, who possessed the advantages of 
the law, had foregone them and put himself on the same level, 
in relation to law, with them. Thus while yip€crd€ eyd> 
addresses them as subject to law, or on the point of becoming 
so, G)9 looks at tiiem as Gentiles without the advantages 
of law. A similar thought is expressed less enigmatically in 
215 , 16 y 9) ^4^.^ esp. v.b Cf. also i Cor. 

It affects the sense but little whether with we supply or 
Y^Tova (or Y^T^va corresponds best with Y^veaOe and the 

actual facts, since the apostle’s freedom from law was the result of a 
becoming, a change of relations. On the other hand, eijxf corresponds 

IV, 12-13 237 

best with eatl, which must be supplied with 5EX6Tq and better fits the 
parallelism, which is evidently intended to be paradoxical. The inter- 
pretation of Chrys. et al.^ according to which is supplied after 
giving the meaning, because I was formerly imder law as ye 
now are,’’ is open to the two objections: (a) that, the reference to past 
time being essential to the thought, ijyLKjv could hardly have been left to 
be supplied, and (b) that the appeal, to be effective, must be not sim- 
ply to the apostle’s former state, which he has now abandoned, but to 
his present state or his abandonment of the former state. 

ovSS fxe '^SiKTjcrare* 13 , ol'Sare Se 6tl Bl acrOeveiav 
crap/co9 euTfyyeXicrdfxrjv vf/iv rb Ttporepov^ Ye did me no wrong, 
but ye know that because of an infirmity of the flesh I preached 
the gospel to you on that former occasion.” ovhev pe rjBiKrjixaTe 
is in all probability an allusion to an assertion of the Galatians 
that they had done the apostle no wrong, it being equally 
their right to accept his message when he came and that of the 
later Christian teachers when they came; to which the apostle 
adroitly replies conceding that they did him no wrong in the 
first instance, and going on to remind them of their former gen- 
erous and affectionate treatment of him. In he follows 
this up with the intimation that they are now doing him a 
wrong in counting him their enemy. The reference to the 
bodily weakness which was the occasion of his preaching to 
them had for its purpose in Paulas mind to remind them of their 
affectionate attitude towards him and to renew it. For the 
modern reader it has the added value of furnishing an interesting 
and valuable detail concerning the circumstances under which 
Paul first preached in Galatia. On this aspect of the matter, 
see the Introd,, p. xxix. On the nature of the illness, see fine 
print below. Whether to irportpov referred to the former of 
two occasions on which he had preached the gospel to them 
orally, hence of two visits to Galatia, was, of course, perfectly 
clear to the Galatians. For the modern reader this can only 
be definitely decided by proving, if it can be done, from sources 
outside this passage whether Paul had already been in Galatia 
once or twice. See below on to icpbrepov, 

{m ^txfiaonre is open to several interpretations according as 
(a) is taken in the sense (i) 'To wrong,” “to do injustice 


to one/^ or (ii) “to harm,” “to injure”; (b) the aorist is understood to 
refer to a distinctly past time, in contrast with the recent past or pres- 
ent, equivalent to the English past, or as covering the period up to 
the present, and so equivalent to the English perfect; (c) [jA is imder- 
stood to be emphatic or not, and if emphatic, as standing in implied 
antithesis, e. g., to Spiaq or Xpwt6v; (d) according as the sentence is 
or is not supposed to refer to a claim of the Galatians to the effect 
that they had not wronged or harmed him. Of the different views 
thus resulting, those that are at all probable may be stated as follows: 
(i) Ye did me (at that time) no injustice; it is now that you are unjust 
in regarding me as your enemy (cf. v.i<)» The occasion of the state- 
ment is in this case not in anything that the Galatians have said, but 
in the apostle’s own sense of having been wronged. (2) I grant that 
ye did me (at that time) no injustice. In this you are right. I can 
not grant that ye are not now wronging me in regarding me as your 
enemy. (3) Ye have not wronged me; it is Christ that ye have 
wronged. (4) Ye have not harmed me; it is yourselves fhat ye have 
harmed. Of these several views the second best accords with the 
contest, and best accounts for the introduction of these otherwise 
enigmatic words. The context says nothing of their wronging Christ 
or injuring themselves, but does imply that they are now regarding 
Paul as their enemy, which would, of course, be felt by Paul as an 
injustice. The sentence is, moreover, more likely to have found its 
occasion in some word of theirs than to have originated with Paul him- 
self. Had the latter been the case, he would probably have added 
some adverb or phrase of past time (c/. v.«); 8^ is slightly adversative: 
Ye did me no wrong, but rather when I preached, etc., ye received me, 

At' d<i 0 lv€tav (cf. ofl Suvdttievoc 8t' dca 64 vetav xXeuaat, quoted by 
M. and M. Voc, s. v., from a papyrus of 135 a. d.) expresses the occa- 
sioning cause of the not the means (8t' daOevetec) or 

limiting condition (Iv dtaSevefcjt). It was a bodily weakness that gave 
occasion to his preaching to the Galatians, either by detaining him in 
Galatia longer than he had intended, or by leading him to go there 
contrary to his previous plan. Both here and in v.^^ <j<kg^ is obviously 
to be taken in its physical sense, equivalent to ofiipa; see on 3*, and 
detached note on IlveOpa and II 2, p. 492. Other senses of the 
word are plainly inappropriate to the context. The factors to be 
taken into account in considering what was the nature of the weakness 
are: (a) the phrase xstpaapLbv Iv Tfj aocpxf pou (see below), which 
undoubtedly refers to the same thing here designated as dcrBlvetav 
oapx6c, tends to show that the latter was in some way offensive 
to the Galatians or calculated to lead to the rejection of his message, 
(b) V.” suggests that Paul’s sickness was a disease of the eyes, obstruct- 


IV, 13 

ing Ms sight, (c) 2 Cor. 12^, 186673 jx-ot 0x6X0$ aapxi^ may not im- 
probably be -understood to refer to the same fact. But neither of 
these latter identifications are certain. Of the many explanations 
proposed, persecution, temptation to sensuality, spiritual trials, such 
as temptation to despair and doubt, -w^holly fail to meet the conditions. 
The language can refer only to some physical ailment hard to bear, 
and calculated to keep him humble and, in some measure, to repel 
those to whom he preached. Ltft. Lip. Dib. GwL pp. 46^., ei aL, 
favour epilepsy, Ruckert et at. some affection of the eyes; Ramsay, 
reviving in part an ancient opinion, thinks it was fever with ac- 
companying severe headache {St. Patd, pp. 94 and Com. on Gcd.j 
pp. 422 Jf.), For fuller Hst of conjectures, see Ltft. pp. 186 Jf-, Stanley, 
Com. on Cor., pp. 547 jf. Ramsay’s view could be sustained only by 
showing that fever was, in Galatia, regarded as an infliction of the 
gods, showing the sufferers to be under their special disapprobation. 
But that this was in any peculiar sense true of fevers is scarcely shown 
by anything that Ramsay advances. Cf. ut sufra. The reference to 
a disease of the eyes, though favoured by is weakened by the lack 
of any emphasis upon SyLfiv indicated by position or otherwise. Epi- 
lepsy fulfils the conditions, but no better, perhaps, than many other 
diseases. The precise nature of the apostle’s suffering must be left 
undecided. No decisive inference can be drawn from tMs illness con- 
cerning the location of the Galatian churches. eiiQYTsXtodiJnQV is used 
here, as everywhere else in the epistle (i»* ^he specific 

sense, to preach the gospel, to bring the good news of salvation in 

np6Tepo<; is a comparative adjective in frequent use from Homer 
down. *icp6T:epov is employed as a temporal adverb from Pindar and, 
with the article, from Herodotus down. In the latter use it is usually 
the case that an event having happened twice (e. g., a place visited or 
a battle fought) or two periods of time being brought into comparison, 
and the latter having been specifically mentioned, wp6i:cpov desig- 
nates the earlier one. The two occasions or periods may both be in 
the past: Hdt. 2“<; Thuc. i, 59% 3. 87*’ 5, 65*; Xen. Mem. 3. 8^; 

Ee^l. s- 3*“; Isoc. 59c (4”)t ^5^ d (7”); Oen. 13* 281® Deut. 9^* Josh. 
iiio I Kgs. i3« Dan. 3“ i Mac. 3^® 4«® 5^ 6^ Or one may be past 
and theother present: Thuc. 6, 86*; Plato, Crai. 436 E; Rep. 522 A; Dem. 
^2^. »«* 48*9; Deut. 2*« Josh. 14** 15** Judg. i*® i8*». Or one may 

be past and the other future: Isa. Jer. 37 (3o)« 40 (33)'^* ** i Mac. 
6”. Occasionally the two events are not similar but contrasted. See 
cxx, of this usage in Xen. An. 4* 4**; Neh. 13' Job 42® i Tim. i*». 
«p6T«pov without the article signifies in enumerations '‘first,” im- 
plying also a second in the series (Heb. 7»»); or “on a former occasion,” 
without implying dther repetition or contrast, though the context 



sometimes suggests that what was xp6Tepov, '' formerly,” no longer 
existed at the time denoted by the principal verb. Isa. 41“ Jn. 7” 
2 Cor, Heb. 4*. In a few cases tb xpdTepov seems also to be em- 
ployed in this way: Isoc. 70 (15“*)) 354 c (16®^); Isa. 52^; Sus. 52; 
Jn. 6«* 9*. It is important to notice that when zh xp6i:epov designates 
the former of two occasions or periods, the later one is always one 
which is distinctly referred to or implied in the context, never, so far 
at least as the above examples or any others that have been cited 
show, one which is itself implied only in that an earlier one is called 
tI) xp6Tepov, the former. In other words, in observed instances it 
implies no duality except that of an occasion mentioned in the context 
(which may be past, present, or future), and of the event to which 
Tb xpbxepov itself applies. Yet it is obvious that the knowledge of 
the readers might supply what is lacking in the context. While, there- 
fore, Tb xpbTepov in this passage does not imply two previous visits, it 
does not exclude the possibility of them, despite the fact that we have 
no extant example of xpbTgpov referring to the former of two occasions 
neither of which is otherwise referred to in the context. To this should 
be added the evidence of vv.^« and {q. ».), slightly confirmed by i», 
that between his first visit to Galatia and the writing of the present 
letter Paul had communicated with the Galatians, either in person or 
by letter. There are, accordingly, three possibilities: (a) Tb xpbTepov 
implies no comparison of occasions of preaching, but means simply 
formerly.” Against this is the apparent needlessness of the phrase, 
if this is all that it means. It is so self-evident that his preaching in 
Galatia was formerly, that the inclusion of the word in this sense is 
seemingly motiveless, (b) The apostle regarded the present letter as 
a reiteration of the gospel in its distinctive features, and referred to 
the one and only oral proclamation of the gospel as on the former 
occasion, as compared with the letter. Against this is the fact that 
on the hypothesis that this letter is considered a preaching of the 
gospel, and in view of the evidence of an intervening communication 
dted above, the present preaching was the third, which renders it 
improbable that the first would be said to be nrb xpbTcpov. Against 
it is also the fact that Paul and N. T. writers generally use eOay 
of oral preaching only. Yet there is nothing in the word itself to 
exclude a reference to publication in writing, and -ft . . . 

xpoeutjYYcXfffaTo of 3* is perhaps some evidence that Paul might use 
the simple verb in the same way. (c) It being known to the Galatians 
that Paul had preached to them orally twice, Trb xpbTepov sdf-evidently 
meant for them on the former of these two occasions. This takes the 
verb and rb %p6zepov in their usual sense, and though involving a use 
of Tb xpbrepov with reference to the former of two events, knowledge 
of the second of which is supplied by the readers, not by the context — 


IV, i 3 “-i 4 

» usage which is without observed parallel — ^is, on the whole, the most 
probable. Parallels would in the nature of the case be difficult to 
discover, since they could be recognised only by evidence not furnished 
in the context. It remains, however, that the significance of xh 
icpfirepov depends on the question of fact whether Paul had actually 
preached twice in Galatia before writing this letter; xh 'icp6Tepov itself 
does not prove him to have done so. See further in Introd. p. xlv. 

That xh xp6T6pov implies two visits to Galatia is the view of Alf. 
Ltft. Sief. (Zahn, two or more) Bous., and many other modem inter- 
preters from Luther down. Sief. quotes Grot, and Keil for the second 
of the views stated above. Vernon Bartlet, in Expositor, Series V, 
vol. lo (1899), p. 275, explains Trb xpdirepov as meaning “at the begin- 
ning,” in the earlier part of his evangelising visit, and as suggesting 
that it was only the initiation of his work that was occasioned by his 
illness, the continuance of it being for other reasons. He supports 
this view by the contention that refers to the presen- 

tation of the gospel to a people who have not received it, and, there- 
fore, can not be used to cover two visits (a statement sufficiently refuted 
by Rom. 1“ No instances of xp6Tepov in this sense are cited, 

nor does it seem to be justified by usage. The view of McGiffert, 
Apostolic Age, p. 228, that xh xpdirepov refers to the eastward journey 
from Antioch to Derbe, the later, implied, journey being the return 
westward, does less violence to the usage of Tb xpbtepov and eiSay- 
-IzX(X,o\jjxt, But inasmuch as the letter is addressed to all the 
churches of the group, and the most eastern would on this theory have 
been visited but once, it is improbable that the apostle would have 
spoken of the journey up and back as involving two evangelisations 
of them. 

14 . fcal Tov TTeLpafffXov vii&v iv aapKi pov ovk i^ouOevi^craTe^ 
oifBe i^eiTTva-are^ ^‘and that which was a temptation to you 
in my flesh, ye did not reject or despise. On vp&v as objective 
genitive after irapaapAp cf, Lk. 222*. The whole phrase, rov 
Treipacrpov vp&v iv ry aapU juou, stands, as the following verbs 
show, by metonymy for some such expression as ejue Tetpd^opra 
vpa^ St A r)jp acrddp€Lap aapKds pov. For similar metonymy, 

see Ps. 22^ ( 25 ). Tupaapdv is probably temptation rather than 
simply trial; there was something in the apostle’s physical con- 
dition which tempted them to reject him and his message. 
i^€XTV(raT€, not found in the Lxx and here only in N. T., is 
found in Greek writers from Homer down. 



Sief/s attempt, following Lach. and Butt., to escape the difficulty 
that iuetpacr{j.6v is not logically the object of l?ou6evi^aocT6 and 15670:6- 
aore by placing a colon after aapxC yiou, thus making 7C6tpacp.6v the 
object of oTSocts, and the beginning of a new sentence, 

is extremely forced, and in view of Ps. 22** (“) is quite unneces- 

Though in aU other extant instances Ixxt6ci) is used of a physical act, 
^‘to spit out,” the impossibility of such a sense here and the fact that 
the similar compounds of 7CT6eev (cf. dxoTT. Aesch. Bum. 303 : dtxoirc6st<; 
Xdfou?. Aesch. Ag, 1192: d%iicxo<iQcy d^eX^oO) and other words 
of similar meaning (cf. Rev. 3^®: piiXXo> os eyiioai lx toG onrdtJuzTd? ptou) 
are used in the tropical sense, make it unnecessary to question the 
tropical meaning, “to reject,” here. 

aXXA 0)9 ayyeXov Beov iSe^acrOe /xe, &9 Xpicrroy *l 7 ]aovy, ^^but 
ye received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.’^ ayyeXov is 
commonly used by Paul not in its general sense of ‘^messenger’' 
(Mt. Lk. 72^*2^ 9®^ Mk. Jas. 2^5), for which he uses aTro- 
<rroXo 9 (2 Cor. 8^3 Phil. 2^®), but an angel, a superhuman being. 
Cf. I® 3^® I Cor. 4® 13^; M. and M. Voc. s. v. This is doubtless 
its sense here. That Paul was God’s messenger” is implied 
by the context, not the word. The use of Beov without the 
article emphasises the qualitative character of the phrase, and 
brings out more strongly the dignity ascribed to Paul as God’s 
representative. Cf. on v.*. The sentence, however, means 
not that they supposed him actually to be superhuman, but 
that they accorded him such credence and honour as they would 
have given to an angel of God. Note 'X.picrrov ^Itjcrovv and 
cf. Phm. iS^^acrde suggests the idea of welcome more dis- 
tinctly than would have been done by iXd^ere or TrapeXa^ere. 
Cf. chap. ^25 yet see also 2 Cor. where both verbs occur. 
m 'Kpicrrov "^Irjcrovv is a climactic addition. Cf. Rom. 8®® Col. 
ji 5 , 16^ q'jjg force of m is the same as with ayyeXop, As to 
the relation of the apostle to Christ Jesus which makes such 
reception possible, see 2 Cor. 5*®. 

The meaning of the sentence would not be materially diffa:ent if 
&yyMXQv were taken in the not impossible sense of “messenger.” Cf. 
2 Cor. 12^, where SyytXoq SonravS is similarly ambiguous, the phrase 
referring figuratively to a bodily affliction of some kind. Yet, that in 

IV, I4-IS 243 

both cases the word itself denotes a superhuman being is rendered prob- 
able by Paul’s evident belief in such beings and his usual use of the 
word. See Everling, Die paidinische Angddogie und Ddmonologte, pp. 

59 Jf. Dib. pp. 4s/. 

15 . ToO odv 0 Ma#capt<r/io9 Where, then, is thatgratu- 

lation of yourselves?” The question is rhetorical, iinpl3dng 
that the gratulation has ceased, but without good reason. Cf. 
Lk, 8®^: TToO ^7 tt/ctti? v/x&p; and for instances with different 
implication, see Rom. 3^^ i Cor. odphas the force 

of cym ita sint, referring to the facts stated in 
vycov is probably objective genitive after ixaKapKXjx&i^ 'declara- 
tion of blessedness,” as is rov apOpmirov in Rom. 4®. Even if 
vfx&p be taken as subjective genitive (Sief.), it would be neces- 
sary to tmderstand it as referring to a gratulation of themselves, 
not of others, as is shown clearly by the following sentence 
introduced by ydp and referring to the enthusiasm of the Gala- 
tians in receiving Paul. On the use of the simple pronoun for 
the reflexive, see Rob. p. 681, and the examples in the imme- 
diately preceding and following sentences, 7reipa<rjjLbv vy&v and 
6<l>da\fxotf<i vp&v. 

IIou is the reading of ^ABCFGP 33, 104, 424**, 442, 1912 f g Vg. 
Syr, (psh. hard, mg.), Boh. Arm. Euthal. Dam. Hier. Pelag. Of these 
f Vg. Boh. (?) Arm. Hier. al. add icrclv after o5v. DKL al. pier, d Goth. 
Syr. (hard, txt.) Thdr. Mop. Sever. Chr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. Victoiin. 
Aug. Ambrst. al. read zlg instead of xou. DFGK al. pier, d e Goth. 
Chr. Thdrt. Aug. Ambrst. add after o5v. The choice is between 
xou o3v and o3v ijv, the other readings being corruptions or con- 
flations of these. Internal evidence is indedsive. Mey. and, follow- 
ing him, Zahn prefer vf? o3v ^v. But the strong preponderance of 
external evidence requires the adoption of xou o3v. The alternative 
reading is probably an imintentional derical corruption, HO being 
converted into TIS, and Y omitted to make sense. 

yaprvpm ydp vixiv 8n el Swarov rois 6(f)9aXpotf9 vpmv e^o- 
pv^avre: iSwKard /iot. ''For I bear you witness that ye 
would, if possible, have plucked out your eyes and given them 
to me.” A confirmation immediately of the assertion implied 
in 0 paKapicrpo^ vp&v but indirectly of the affiimation of their 



former favourable attitude, which began with ovSev •^SiK’^traTe 
Ite, v.“. That he dwells on this matter at such length and 
states it so strongly shows the apostle’s strong desire to rein- 
state himself in the affections of the Galatians. The language 
escapes h5rperbole only by the expression ei SwaTov. The 
inference from the reference to the eyes that Paul’s weakness 
of the flesh was a disease of the eyes, though slightly favoured 
by ei dvvarov in preference, e. g., to d avayKoiov is very pre- 

Tpitv is not an indirect object denoting the person who receives the 
testimony {cf. Acts 15*), but dative of advantage, denoting the one to 
whose credit witness is borne (c/. Acts 22® Rom. lo® Col. 4“). eE 
Suvairbv . . . (JLot is evidently a hypothesis contrary to fact, (5tv 

being omitted. C/. BMT 249 and Mt. 26^ Jn. 9” 15” 19“. On the 
mention of the eyes as the most precious members of the body, cf. 
Deut. 32i« Ps. I7» Zach. 2®, and on l?op6aar6) of the plucking out of the 
eyes, see Hdt. l§( 5 pu§E aEJirwv h xaT^ip to 6<; 690aXtJLoi!)i; Stdk Ti)v 
aiTEijv 'ca6T‘»)v (viz., for going to war against his command), and other 
exx. dted by Wetst., ad loc.y also Lxx, Judg. 16^^ (A; B reads Ixx-dx-uco); 
I Sam. Jos. Ant. 6. 69 (5O uses l)tx6xT:(»); Mt. 5®° i8», e§atp 4 (o. Of 
mention of the plucking out of one^s eyes as an act of self-sacrifice no 
example other than the present has been pointed out. 

16. &(Tre i'xOpo^ vfi&v y^ova aXi^BevCi^v vijllv, ‘‘So that I 
have become your enemy by telling you the truth ! ” 
must doubtless be taken not in the passive sense, hated by^* 
(so from Homer down; and probably in Rom. 5^^^ but in 
the active sense, hostile to/’ hater of,” since in N. T. (Mt. 5^® 
Rom. 12^®, etfreq.) and (according to Sief. ad loc., citing Dem. 
439^® 1121^^; Xen. An. 3. 2®; Soph. Aj. 554) in classical writers 
also, ix^pd^ with the genitive regularly has this active sense. 
The passive sense requires a dative expressed or understood. 
Xen. Cyr. 5. 4*^°, etc. It follows that the phrase i^pd<s vfi&p 
expresses not the fact as Paul looked at it, but the view 
which the Galatians were taking or disposed to take; and the 
sentence is either a question asking (indignantly) whether [they 
hold that] he has indeed become hostile to them by telling the 
truth, or an exclamation expressing in ix6ph>: ifp&p ydyopa the 

IV, is~i6 


view which the apostle sadly recognises the Galatians are tak- 
ing of him, and in aX7]0€vo)p vpXv the cause to which he ascribes 
their hostility. The latter explanation is the more probable, 
for &(Tr€ does not elsewhere, in N. T. at least, introduce a ques- 
tion nor bear the weak sense (— oiv) which the interrogative 
interpretation requires. Sxrre . , , vyZv is, then, an inference 
from the facts stated in and the further premise supplied 

by the apostle’s conscience, that he has done nothing to pro- 
duce this effect except to tell them the truth. Since you, 
then, regarded me with such affection and now count me your 
enemy, this can only have come about through my telling you 
the truth.” The appropriate punctuation is, therefore, an ex- 
clamation point. 

The question when the truth-speaking referred to in d(XiQ6e6(t>v took 
place is of considerable interest for the chronology of Paul’s relations 
to the Galatians. That it can not have been on the occasion referred to 
in w.“* IS is plain from the force of Y^yova, which, denoting a present 
state the result of a past act of becoming, describes a change from 
a former condition, as well as by the manifest contrariety between the 
enmity expressed in ex8p6<; and the friendly relations described in 
Had it been alleged that Paul had really been on that first 
visit not their friend but their enemy in that he had taught them 
things which he affirms to be true, but which his opponents called false, 
which enmity they had only discovered through the subsequent 
teachings of the judaisers, that thought must have been expressed by 
some such phrase as C)p.( 5 v (iXT)6e6eiv, or etJpTjpujti 

(or eip-O Scdk Tb (or dX‘jQ0sOaat). Nor can the 

truth-speaking be that of this letter, since implies a result al- 

ready existing, and the Galatians had not yet read the letter. Zahn, 
indeed, proposes to take it as an epistolary perfect, referring to what 
the Galatians will say when the letter is read. But aside from the 
improbability that Paul would intimate to the Galatians that the 
effect of his letter would be to make them call him their enemy, the 
very existence of the epistolary perfect is doubtful (the usage described 
in Kiihner-Gerth, 384®, Gild. Syntax, 234 is not precisely this), and, if 
one may judge from the analogy of the epistolary aorist (BMT 44), 
would be confined to verbs of writing and sending. The natural infer- 
ence, therefore, is that the reference is to things said at a second visit 
or in a letter previous to this one. That the utterances here referred 
to were those spoken of in x®, or utterances made at the same time, is 
an obvious suggestion in view of the somewhat minatory tone of i*. 


This, however, if accepted, would not dedde whether the utterance 
was in person or letter (since xpoetpijxapsv in i* can, just as well as 
refer to a written statement), and the present verse contributes 
to the question whether Paul had made a second visit to Galatia only 
the probability that there had been some communication from Paul 
to the Galatians between the evangelising visit and this letter. Cf. 
above on v.“ and below on v.®". 

17 . tri^ovcnv v/tas ov KoXSy;, aXSA iKKXetaai vfiait 6 iXov<nv, 

tva avTotK lr}XjovTe. “They zealously seek you, not honestly, 
but wish to shut you out that ye may seek them.” In contrast 
with his own frank truthfulness by which he risked incurring 
gnd actually incurred the suspicion of hostility to the Galatians, 
the apostle declares that they— his opponents, unnamed by so 
much as a pronoun but clearly enough referred to— are courting 
the favour of the Galatians, not honourably {cf. Heb. 13**), i. e., 
not sincerely and unselfishly, but with selfish motive. That 
from which these opponents of Paul wish to exclude the Gala- 
tians is not stated; the context implies either (a) the privilege 
of the gospel, i. e., the sense of acceptance with God which 
those have who believe themselves to have fulfilled 'the divine 
requirements, or (b) the circle of those who hold the broader 
view, Paul and his companions and converts, who maintain 
that the Gentiles are accepted if they have faith and without 
fulfilling the requirements of the law. In either case, the effect 
of such exclusion would be that the Galatians would turn 
to the Jewish Christians for guidance and association, and 
the latter would be in the position of being sought after 
(^ijXovre). The verb iKKXeiffai rather favours the former 
interpretation, since it is not natural to speak of one group of 
persons as shutting others out from another group; a verb mean- 
ing tp alienate, or to cause separation from, would be more 
probable. On see B 1 .-D. 93; BlfJ' 198. Whether we 

have here an irregularity of form (fijXoOre being thought of as 
subjunctive) or of syntax {^rjXavre being an indicative after 
tva) is not possible to determine with certainty. 

18. KaXbv Se fijXoOfffiai iv KaX^ irdvrore, Kal fi^i ydvov h> 
vapeivai fie Tpdf vpcK, “But it is good to be zealously sought 

IV, 17-18 


after in a good thing, always, and not only when I am present 
with you.” Most probably a reference to his own persistent 
seeking after the Galatians, which he by implication character- 
ises as Ka\^ in contrast with that of the judaisers, which was 
ov KaXw, and for the continuance of which, even while absent, 
he justifies himself by this statement, enforced by v.^®. This 
interpretation retains as the implied subject of the passive 
^rfkovadai the object of the active ^^fKavre in v. and best 
comports with the tone of v.^^ into which he passes from this v, 
apparently without break in thought. 

ZiQXouaOai must be taken as a passive, no instance of the middle 
being found elsewhere, and there being no occasion for change from 
active to middle form. Iv defines the sphere in which alone xaXbv 
XjikouaQai is true. is in evident antithesis to the following 

phrase, xal ti-?) . . . xpbq The addition of this phrase, with its 

definite personal pronoun shows that xaXbv . . . though in form 

simply a general maxim, had in the apostle’s mind specific reference 
to the existing situation, the relations of the Galatians to Paul and his 
opponents. The words might therefore mean, ‘T do not object to 
others as well as myself seeking to gain your friendship, so only they 
do it in a good thing, in the realm of that which is for your good.” It 
is an objection to this interpretation that tJL6vov . . . Opta? awk- 
wardly expresses the idea ^*by others as well as myself,” and that such 
a disclaimer of desire on the apostle’s part to monopolise the interest 
and affection of the Galatians does not lead naturally to v.“. The 
words may also be explained by taking Paul as the implied subject of 
t^TQXoOaOac. ‘Tt is a fine thing — ^I myself could desire — to be sought 
after, in a good thing — always, when I am away from you as well as 
when I am present.” In this case the sentence is a thinly veiled re- 
proach of the Galatians for their fickleness in changing their attitude 
towards him, now that he is no longer with them. The change in im- 
plied subject of t^TgXouffeat without indication that the reference is now 
to the apostle himself is an objection to this interpretation, though not 
a decisive one; the apostle may have preferred to leave the reference 
somewhat veiled. But it is difficult on this interpretation to account 
for Iv xaX^, no such qualification being called for if the apostle is think- 
ing of the Galatians seeking after him. Probably, therefore, the inter- 
pretation first proposed is the true one. 51 is in that case adversative, 
marking an antithesis between the I^tqXoOv of the judaisers, which he 
disapproves, and his own, which he justifies. 



19. reKva jjLoVy irdXiv iie)(pui o5 fxopcj>o^d^ l^pLaro^f 
ip vfuv, ‘‘oh, my children with whom I travail again in birth 
pangs till Christ be formed in you/^ Language of deep affec- 
tion and emotion, called forth by the previous words defending 
his right to continue his zealous efforts to hold the affection of 
his readers, and probably to be attached to the preceding v. 
The figure is after the fashion of the apostle, and extremely 
bold; riKpa addresses them in affectionate tone as his children, 
i. e.y as those whom he has already begotten or borne; oC? 
iraXip wSlpo) represents them as again in the womb, needing a 
second (spiritual) birth, and himself as a mother suffering again 
the birth pangs, which must continue till Christ be formed in 
them, i, e., until it be true of them as of him that Christ lives in 
them (2^^). 

Were it not for the 81 at the beginning of v.»o, v.” would naturally 
be taken as the beginning of a sentence and as its completion. 
The occurrence of 81, however, necessitates either connecting v,i» with 
as in WH., or assuming an anacoluthon at the beginning of v.*®, 
as in RV. The recurrence in v.^o of the expression xapstvat xpb? 
used also in v. 1 ®, implies a close connection between these vv. and 
makes it improbable that v,i® begins a new line of thought, which is 
broken off at v.^®. The punctuation of WH. is therefore more prob- 
ably correct than that of RV. 

The figure of speech involved in <58 (vw, though startling to modern 
ears, is unambiguously clear. The precise form of the thought ex- 
pressed in p,op<p<i)efi is less certain. There are three possibilities: (a) In 
themselves the words not unnatmally suggest a reversal of the preced- 
ing figure, those who were just spoken of as babes in the womb, now 
being pictured as pregnant mothers, awaiting the full development of 
the Christ begotten in them. Such abrupt change of figure is not 
imcharacteristic of the apostle. In Rom. 7 S illustrating the relation 
of the believer to the law and to Christ by remarriage, following death, 
he makes the deceased one remarry, sacrificing illustration to the thing 
illustrated. In i Thes. 2 % if, as is probable, the true text is vfjxtoi, 
the apostle in the same sentence calls himself a child, and a mother, 
and a nurse, each term expressing a part of his thought, and in v.^* 
compares Mmsdf to a father. Nor is it a serious obj'ection to this view 
of the present passage that the apostle has not dsewhere employed the 
figiure of Christ being begotten in the believers. It would be easy to 
give examples of figures of speech employed by him but once, as, e, g.. 


IV, 19 

in tMs very verse the comparison of himself to a mother in birth pangs. 
Nor does he shrink from the emplo3Tnent of equally bold figures taken 
from the same general sphere. See Rom. 7^ where he speaks of the 
believer as married to Christ and as bringing forth fruit (children) to 
God, and i Cor. 4^® and Phm. where he speaks of himself as the be- 
getting father of his converts. The word {xopftoG-n (occurring nowhere 
else in Lxx or N. T.) is more consonant with this view than with any 
other. Cf. the use of the synonyms xXdcaco in Jer, i», xpt toO p£ 
xXiioae ae Iv xoeXfqc, Rom. g*® i Tim. 2^*. The only weighty objection 
to this understanding of the figure is that it is not in itself strikingly 
appropriate for the spiritual fact to which the apostle evidently refers, 
and that when elsewhere Paul speaks of Christ in the believer (chap. 2*® 
Col. I®’ etfreq.) the language conveys no suggestion of pregnancy, but 
in less materialistic fashion denotes the indwelling presence of Christ. 
Yet over against this objection is to be set the fact that this passage 
contains, what all the others lack, the word popifKaO^, suggesting if not 
requiring the view that here the thought of the apostle takes on a 
different form from that which it has elsewhere, (b) It is perhaps 
not impossible that without reversal of figure the apostle thinks of his 
birth pangs as continuing till the child in the womb takes on the form 
of the begetting father, who is now thought of as being not Paul but 
Christ. The choice of Xpt(rcb<; iv Op-Iv rather than, e. g., Opiel? 

Iv bpiotcipuzTt Xptff'coO pLop<p(o6T^T:e might in this case be due to the 
influence of the apostle’s favourite form of thought expressed in the 
formula Xpto-Tbg Iv 6pLtv or the like, (c) The figure suggested by 
iSbfvco may be dropped altogether, pLopfpwSjj referring figura- 

tively, of course, but without specific thought of the birth process, to 
that spiritual process, the full achievement of which is elsewhere ex- 
pressed by XpicTbq Iv OpLiv and like phrases. Of these three concep- 
tions of the apostle’s figure of speech the first seems somewhat the 
most probable; yet there is no perfectly decisive evidence for either 
as against the others. The spiritual fact for which the figure stands 
is substantially the same in any case. The reactionary step which 
the Galatians are in danger of taking, forces upon the apostle the pain- 
ful repetition of that process by which he first brought them into the 
world of faith in Christ, and his pain, he declares, must continue till 
they have really entered into vital fellowship with Christ. 

Against the strong external evidence for ^Ixva, H*BD*FG Eus., 
there is no clearly pre-Syrian witness for Tex via except Clem. Alex.; 
For K^ACD’’ *EXP al. pier, are predominantly Syrian. But combined 
with Clem, they probably mark the reading as of Alexandrian origin. 
The adoption of Texvla by WH. txt. (mg. Tlxva) is a departure from 
thdbr usual practice (cf. WH. II p. 342), for which there seems no 
sufficient warrant in the evidence- 



20 . 'ijOeXjop §€ itapeivai Trpo? vixm aprt, Ka\ oXkd^ai Trjp 
<^vriv iiovy in ampoviiai ip vpuv, '<But I could wish to be 
present with you now, and to change my tone; because I am 
in perplexity in reference to you/^ Moved by his deep sense 
of the unhappy situation in Galatia stirred by his strong 
affection for the Galatians (v.^^) and in doubt as to what the out- 
come might be (in airopovfxai ip vp^p)^ the apostle regrets for 
the moment the strong language which he had used when he 
told them the truth, and so gave occasion for its being subse- 
quently said that he had become their enemy (v.^®), and ex- 
presses the fervent wish, evidently regarded as impossible to 
be carried out, that he were even now (apn) with them and 
could speak in a different tone from that which he had used on 
that other occasion. For an entirely similar instance of strong 
language subsequently for a time regretted, see 2 Cor. 7®, and 
for the letter to which he there refers, 2 Cor., chaps. 11-13. 

On ^0eXov, cf. BMT 33; Rob. 885/. The wish is evidently regarded 
as impracticable, though not distinctly characterised as such by the 
language, ^fpxt with more sharply defined reference to the present 
moment than vuv means ‘'at this very moment.*^ The clause 5xc 
. . . Iv 'suggests for t^v (pc^v^v pLou the meaning “to 

change my tone according to the situation.” But the absence of a 
limiting phrase such as xax* dva-ptatov is against this and necessitates 
understanding it to mean, “to modify my tone,” i, e., to adopt a dif- 
ferent one; yet certainly not different from the immediately preceding 
language of strong affection: to express this wish would be unaccount- 
ably harsh. The reference can only be to a tone different from that, 
doubtless less considerate, manner of speech which he had used when 
he told them the truth (v.w; cf, note on that v. and reference to i»)- 
?xi dxopoOiwct, giving the reason for ^0eXov, etc., probably has chief refer- 
ence to xapetvae %gh<; 5 pd<;; because of his perplexity about them, 
he washes he were even now present with them. U is slightly adver- 
sative. Though justifying his attitude towards the Galatians when 
he was present with them as having been h xaX$ (v. »), he yet 
wishes that he could now speak in a different tone. dTcopoOpiat is middle 
(the middle and passive forms are thus used wdth nearly the same 
meanmg as the active in Dem. 830*, etc.; Sir. Lk. h* In, 13” Acts 
25*® 2 Cor. 4»). Iv Ojitv means “in respect to you,” as in 2 Cor. 7^«, 

IV, 20 


lo. A supplementary argument based on an allegorical 
use of the story of the two sons of Abraham, and 
intended to induce the Galatians to see that they 
are joining the wrong branch of the family 
Before leaving the subject of the seed of Abraham it occurs 
to the apostle, apparently as an after-thought, that he might 
make his thought clearer and more persuasive by an allegorical 
interpretation of the story of Abraham and his two sons, Ish- 
mael and Isaac, the one born in course of nature only, the other 
in fulfilment of divine promise. The two mothers he interprets 
as representing the two covenants, that of law and that of 
promise, and the two communities, that of the lineal descen- 
dants of Abraham, and that of those who walked in the footsteps 
of his faith. In the antagonism between the two sons, or their 
descendants, he finds a parallel to the persecution to which the 
Gentile Christians have been subjected at the hands of the 
Jewish Christians, and cites scripture to show that the former 
are rejected of God. The argument is in effect this: Would 
you be, as the judaisers have been exhorting you to be, sons 
of Abraham? Be so, but observe that of the Abrahamic family 
there are two branches, the slave and the free. We, brethren, 
whose relation to Abraham is spiritual, not physical, we are the 
sons not of the slave, but of the free. 

^^Tell me, ye that wish to be under law, do ye not hear the law? 
^For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by the maid 
servant, and one by the freewoman, ^^But the son of the maid 
servant was born according to the flesh; the son of the freewoman 
through promise, ^Which things are allegorical utterances. For 
these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount Sinai, 
bringing forth children unto bondage, which is Hagar ^^(now 
Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia) and corresponds to the Jerusa- 
lem that now is. For she is in bondage with her children. ^^But 
the Jerusalem above is free, which is our mother. ^’^For it is writ- 
ten, Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and 
shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of the 
desolate than of her that hath the husband. ^^And ye, brethren, like 
Isaac, are children of promise. ^^But as then he that was born 


according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according to 
the Spirit, so also now. ^^But what saith the scripture? Cast out 
the maid servant and her son. For the son of the maid servant 
shaU not inherit with the son of the freewoman. ^^Therefore, 
brethren, we are children, not of a maid servant, hut of the free-- 

21 . Aeyerd ixoi, ol inrb vdfxop deXovre; ehai^ rov vofiov ovk 
aKovere; ^^Tell me, ye that wish to be under law, do ye not hear 
the law?’’ The abrupt beginning reflects excited feeling, and is 
calculated to arrest attention. Cf. chap. 32; rovro fxovov 0 eXco 
liaOeip a<l> vix&v. It had apparently only just occurred to the 
apostle that he might reach his readers by such an argument as 
that which follows. The address oi vto vofiov Odkovre; ehat 
implies, as is indicated throughout the letter, that the Galatians 
have not adopted, but are on the point of adopting, the legalis- 
tic principle and practices. Cf. i® 3® 4^^* The Galatians are 
not VTO pojJLOP but VTO pofiop deXopre; ehai. vto poijlop evi- 
dently has the same meaning as in 3“, v.^, and in Rom. 

the word vdiio<; thus bearing the same sense which it has con- 
stantly in this and the preceding chapter, divine law viewed by 
itself as a legalistic system. See note on 3^® and detached note 
on N0/X09, V 2. c. On the other hand, top pofxop in itself 
probably refers, as is indicated by 4^^^ etc., to the 0 . T. scrip- 
tures (detached note, V 3), which, they had been taught, con- 
tained that legalistic system which they were urged to accept. 

22. yeypaTTOL 6 tl A^paiup. Svo vloir: 

rfi<i TaLbl(jK7i<i kgX ipa e/c rTfS iXevddpas' ^Tor it is written that 
Abraham had two sons, one by the maid servant, and one by 
the freewoman.” See Gen., chaps. 16, 17. TratS/cr/c^y, properly 
referring to a young woman, and denoting age, not status, be- 
came among the Greeks a term for a female slave (see L, & S.) 
and is frequently so used in the Lxx. 

23 . aXX* 0 pkp €/c Trjs TratSfcir/ci^s Karh. aapKa yeydpP7)TaL, 6 
Sb e/c Tfjs iX£vedpas St eTayyeXlas. '‘But the son of the 
maid servant was bom according to the flesh; the son of the 
freewoman through promise.” mrh crdpKa, "by natural gen- 
eration,” in the ordinary course of nature (cf. Rom. 9® and 

IV, 21-24 


detached note on TLv^vixa and 2ap^, p. 492, 3 (a) under (rdp^)^ 
and iirayyeXLaSj ‘through promise/’ are antithetical, not by 
mutual exclusion, but in the fact that, though Isaac was begot- 
ten and bom Karh adpKa^ his birth was also St’ irayyeXiaSy and 
was significant because of this, while the birth of Ishmael was 
simply icard crdpKa, On the hrayyeXoa here referred to, see 
Gen. 15^ 17^®, and cf. chap. 3^^ The perfect yeyivvi^rai is used 
in preference to the aorist eyevrjdn}^ because the writer is think- 
ing not simply of the historical fact but of the existing result 
of that fact, in the race of IshmaePs descendants and especially 
(for yey 4 vvr]rai belongs in thought to both members of the 
sentence) in Isaac’s descendants. 

WH. bracket {ilv, omitted by B f Vg. Tert. IBl. Hier. Yet the 
concurrent omission of such a word by one Grk. ms. and a small group 
of Latin authorities seems to raise no serious question of its belonging 
to the text. Between ZC iTayyeXlaq (KAC 33, 442 al.) and StA 
iTuavyeXfo? (BDFGKLP al. pier. Or.) it is impossible to choose with 
confidence. Both readings are supported by good pre-Syrian groups. 
But the probability that Paul would have opposed to xord adpxa a 
qualitative Zi’ ixayyeXiaq rather than used the article in referring to 
a promise not previously mentioned seems to turn the scale in favour 

24 . drivd icTTLV dWTjy opovpeva' Which things are allegori- 
cal utterances.” The present tense of the participle, the mean- 
ing of the verb as established by usage, and the facts respecting 
current views, combine to make the above the only tenable 
translation, the participle being interpreted as an adjective 
participle used substantively in the predicate. BMT 432. 
The assertion pertains not to the original sense of the passage, 
what the writer meant when he wrote it, nor to the current or 
proper interpretation of the words, but to the character of the 
utterances as they stand in the scripture. Substantially the 
same thought might have been expressed by driva rj ypa^ff 
dXkfjyopei in the sense, which things the scripture says 
allegorically,” the scripture being conceived of apart from the 
author of. the scripture and as now speaking. 



Tlie verb AWyiyopi^y a late Greek word not found in the Lxx, and 
here only in N. T., occurs first in Strabo i. 2=^, though dXXiQYopCoc 
occurs as early as Demosthenes. Classical writers used aiv^Topiac, 
in the sense, “to speak in riddles'^ (c/. Jos. Ant. Proem, 24 (4), where 
ablTzo[iJoci and dtXXTjYop^w occur together), and Cnvdvotoc of an under- 
lying figurative or allegorical meaning: Xen. Symp. 3«; Plato. Pep, 
378 D; of. Philo, Vita contempl. 28 (3). The meanings of 
are as follows: 

1. To speak allegorically, to utter something which has another 
meaning than that of the words taken literally — the object of the 
verb or subject in the passive being the words uttered: Philo, Leg. 
'dUeg. II 5 (2): <iXX(3: •ml xauxa <pu(Ttxw? dXXiQYOpet. Mut. nom. 67 (9); 
Jos. Ant. Proem. 24 (4); Clem. Alex. Paed. I 45 (chap, vi); Porphyr. 
Antr, Nymph. 4. In the passive, to be spoken allegorically: Porphyr. 
Vita Pythag, 12; Origen, Cels, 4”: *Hcn6S(i) elpT](xiva Iv p60ou 

ocepl TT]!; yuvatxJx; dtXXiQYopstTat. Philo, Vita contempl. 29 (3 b) xoXXt^ 
pvTQpLsta ev rolq dXXiQYopoupiivoci; d-TC^Xcxov. Execrat. 159 (7) 

2. To speak of allegorically, the object being not the words uttered 

or the thing actually mentioned, but that to which there is underlying 
reference. Philo, Leg, alleg. II 10 (4); Plut. Es, earn, Orat. i. 7<. 
In the passive, Philo, Cherub. 25 (8): td 8*?j xa0' gva 

'cp6xov oStw? dXXiQYopgtTrat. Clem. Paed, I 47 (chap, vi): oStox; 
xoXXaxw? dXXiQXOpetTat h Xbyoq. Paed. I 46 (chap. vi). With a 
double object, to call (a thing something) allegorically: Clem. Paed. I 
43 (chap, vi) : crdpxa rb xvsOpa Tb dytov dXXiQYopeL In the pas- 
sive, Clem, Paed. II 62 (chap, viii): ol . . . dxbaxoXot * . . xbSe? 
deXXnxopoOvrat xupfou. Paed. I 47 (chap, vi) bis. 

3. To interpret allegorically, i. e., to draw out the spiritual meaning 
supposed to underlie the words in their literal sense: Philo, Leg. alleg. 
Ill 238. (85): ?va . . . dXXiQYopnc — ^“xotslv Tcb Ipya aiToO.” Origen, 
Cels, akcorcat to6<; TpoxoXoYoOvra^; xal dXXTjYopoOvra? abriiv. Philo, 
Vita contempl. 28 (3 a); Origen, Com. in Joan. 20^®. Cels, 4<»5 

4«7j 73OJ 868. 

For dXXiQYopfa in the sense “an allegory,” “a thing to be understood 
allegorically,” see Philo, Leg. alleg. Ill 236 (84). 

The second of these meanings of the verb is excluded for the present 
passage by the fact that drtva evidently refers either to the persons and 
events just named or to the statements concerning them, not to their 
spiritual significates, which have not yet been named; whereas this 
meaning occurs only in reference to the spiritual significates. If, then, 
we take into consideration the two remaining and for this passage 
only possible significations and the possible usages of the present 
participle in predicate, there result the following possible interpre- 
tations of laTtv dXX,, those that are too improbable to deserve con- 

IV, 24 


sideration being ignored: (i) l(jTtv dXXiQYopo^iJLeva may be, so far as 
usage is concerned, a peripbrastic present of customary action, and 
mean (a) ''are wont to be spoken allegorically’^; but this is excluded 
by the fact that the subject refers to statements taken for substance 
from scripture, of which it might be said that they were spoken alle- 
gorically, but not that they are wont to be so spoken; or (b) "are wont 
to be interpreted allegorically”; but this is excluded by the context, 
for with this meaning the following clause introduced by ydp must be 
imderstood as containing the interpretation thus referred to; but this 
interpretation was certainly not the current Jewish one, and it is very 
improbable that a current Christian interpretation had yet sprung up, 
or, even if it had, that it would be such as that which follows; this is 
adapted to express and sustain Paul’s own conception of things, and 
must be ascribed to him rather than supposed to be borrowed by him 
from a current view. The tempting modification of this, "are to be 
interpreted allegorically,” would give excellent sense, but is not sus- 
tained by Greek usage, which would have required dXXifjYopTjT^; cf. 
Origen, Lam. Jer. Such cases as Acts 15” 21* 2 Pet. 3'* are only 
apparently vouchers for such a use of the participle, since, though they 
may be translated into English by "to be,” etc., they really denote 
not propriety, but impending futurity. To the same effect is the in- 
terpretation of Mey. Sief., "which things have an ^egorical sense”; 
which is sustained neither by any recognised force of the participle 
nor by spedfic instances of such a meaning of the passive of this verb. 
(2) latrcv dcXX'rjyopo^tJt.eva may be supposed to be a periphrastic present 
indicative, meaning "are spoken allegorically,” equivalent to ^ 
dtXXifjYopei, the utterance being thought of as present because made 
by the ever-present scripture. Cf. Rom. 4*: *^1 

Rom. 10®; v.2« below, et freq., and in the passive, Heb. 7”, 8v 
XlYsrat Tauva. But for this idea a periphrastic present would scarcely 
be used, the expression being, indeed, approximately "aoristic,” neither 
progression nor customariness being distinctly suggested. (3) The 
participle may be a present participle for the imperfect, referring 
to an action, strictly speaking, antecedent in time to that of the prin- 
cipal verb (BMT 127; Mt. 2*0, etc.). But the pres. part, is apparently 
never used in this way when the fact referred to belongs definitely to 
time distinctly past in reference to the principal verb, as must be the 
case here if the utterance is thought of as past at all. (4) It may be a 
general present participle equivalent to a noun, and meaning "alle- 
gorical utterances” (BMT 123, 432 (a); MGNTG, p. 127); cf. Jn. 
I2«, T(i ^aXX6p£va "the deposits”; Rom. 10*1 i Cor. 15®® i Thes. 2^* 
2 Thes. Gal. 53, xeptTEp.v 6 pevo<;, "one who receives drcum- 
dsion”; 6®* 1® Eph. 4®® Rom. ii*« i Thes. b pu6ytevo<;, "the deliverer”; 
Philo, Leg. dkg. Ill 239 (85), Xva vb It is 



true tliat N. T. furnishes no example of a present participle applied in 
just this way to utterances of scripture, such utterances, when desig- 
nated by a participle used substantively, being always elsewhere ex- 
pressed by a perfect participle (Tb eEpig^vov: Lk. 2^-* Acts 2i« i3«> 
Rom. 4I8; Tb yerpccpiA^vov: Acts 13*9 24^ 2 Cor. 4^® Gal. 3^0 Rev. i®) or 
by an aorist participle (vb pujdiv: Mt. and ten other passages in 
Mt.). Yet in view of the frequent occurrence of the present participle 
of other verbs with substantive force (see exx. above) and of such 
expressions as i; (Rom. 4®, etc.), Xiyszixt raurae (Heb. 71®; 

sc. iv r 9 <x<pfl)) and f) rp(x<pi] i} Xirouca (Jas. 2^®), and the apparent use of 
(iXXtjyopo^psva with substantive force, meaning “allegorical say- 
ings,"’ in Philo, Vila contempL 29 (3 b) cited above, such a use here is 
not improbable, and, though grammatically more difficult than inter- 
pretation (i), must because of the contextual difficulties of the former 
be preferred to it. It is substantially identical with (2), but gram- 
matically more defensible; and is in substance the interpretation of the 
ancient versions and of the Greek interpreters. See Zahn, ad loc. 
The apostle is then speaking not of what the passage meant as uttered 
by the original writer, but of the meaning conveyed by the passage as 
it stands. In common with Philo before him, and the author of the 
Epistle to the Hebrews and Origen after him, he conceived of the 
scriptures as speaking in his own day; and since Paul elsewhere in 
this epistle and in Romans speaks without qualification of Abraham 
as a historical character, it is apparent that in this passage at least 
he ascribes to the scripture as now speaking a meaning distinct from 
that which it bore as originally written, regarding the latter as repre- 
senting historic truth,* the latter as conveying spiritual truth. The 
only question can be whether in this case he regarded the spiritual 
truth as really conveyed and vouched for by scripture, or only for the 
purposes of appeal to the Galatians adopted a current method of using 
scripture. The unusualness of this method of argument on his part 
perhaps favours the latter view; but the absence of anything in the 
language of this passage (e. g.j (JcvOpwicov X^yo)) to indicate that he 
is speaking otherwise than in accordance with his ovm convictions, 
together with such other instances as i Cor. g® Io^ favours the former. 

• Against the strong evidence that Paul ascribed historicity to the 0. T. narratives, includ- 
ing those here referred to, the word aXkriyopovfjitva can not be cited as valid evidence to the 
contrary. For though the word may often be used when the statements literally understood 
are regarded as not historically true, yet this is not involved in the meaning of the word. 
Of. e, g., Origen. Cels. where Origen, going beyond Paul and saying that the statements 
as originally uttered were allegorically spoken (riX^iiiy6pyyrai.) , yet implies also their historicity 
in their literal sense. Philo, also, though he often rejects the litoral meaning as absurd and 
false (Stmtt. I xoa try]), yet in other instances clearly accepts as historically true in their 
literal sense passages which he also interprets allegorically. {Mui. nm. Si [ 12 ]). Cf. Bous. 
Rel. d. Judmi. *, p. iSs, “Er [dcr tieferc, allegorische Sinn] tritt neben den andem Iden Sinn 
des Wortlautsl, nur in den seltcneren FSllen hebt er ihn auf.” 

rv, 24 


It is doubtful whether any stress can be laid on the fact that Paul 
uses the compound relative cJ'vtvoc rather than the simple 5 . The 
generic force of a-rtva, which as other like things (cf, Th. s. v, 2; 
M.GNTG. p. 91 Jf,; Ell. ad loc.) is appropriate enough in this place, con- 
veying the thought that the predicate deXXir3Yopo6ti.svot applies not sim- 
ply to the passage or events just mentioned, but to others of like char- 
acter in 0 . T, But the use of the relatives in the PauHne letters seems 
to indicate both a preference for the longer form in the nom, plur. and 
an ignoring of the distinction between these and the shorter forms. 
Thus olTivef; occurs in Rom. i*®* 2“ 6* 9^ ii^ i6<' ^ i Cor. 2 Cor. 8^0 

Gal. 2* s* Eph. 41* Col. 4“ 2 Tim. 2*^ Tit, i”, while oK occurs in Rom. 
16^ only; aY^cvs? occurs in Phil. 4* i Tim. 6®, with no instance of aY; 
Sixtvcc occurs, besides the present passage, in Gal. 51* Phil. 3^ Col. 
the only certain instance of a in nom. is Col. 2=**; in i Cor. 4* and Tit. 2^ 
it was probably felt to be accus.; in Col. 2^^ the reading is uncertain; 
in Eph. 5^ it is possibly an accus., but more probably a nom. If, then, 
the three cases of S in the nom. (probably or certainly such), viz. 
Col. 2i^* ** Tit. 2^ be compared with the instances of ^crtva, it will be im- 
possible to discover any difference in the relation of the relative clause 
to the antecedent that will account for the use of ocTtva in one group 
and S in the other. This is especially clear in Col. a**- where of suc- 
cessive clauses in entirely similar relation to what precedes the former 
uses 0? and the latter Srtva. There is even less reason for ascribing to 
IjTK; in Qjiy force different from that of the simple relative 

than in the case of ^iva here; for not only is it difficult to discover 
any of the logical relations sometimes intimated by the use of the 
compound relative, but Paul’s uniform employment of for the 
fern. sing. nom. forbids any argument based on his use of it here in 
preference to ij. 

aSrat ydp eicnv Svo Staffijgat, ixCa fxev onto opous StJ'a, ‘^For 
these women are two covenants, one proceeding from Mount 
Sinai.'' With these words the apostle proceeds to give the alle- 
gorical interpretation of the persons and events referred to in 
vv.2^» 23 ^ IQ point out what they mean when they are taken 
as allegorical utterances. From this point of view dcriv is to 
be interpreted as meaning in eiffect represent,'^ “stand for." 
Cf. Mt. 13®* Mk. 142^; Philo, Cherub. 23 (7): ylveracovprb 
lih Srepov r&v j^epov^lp rj k^oyrdro) {<r(f>a{pa). On 
here meaning “covenants," not “testaments," see detached 
note on AiadrjKrj^ p. 496. Of the two covenants here referred to, 
the first only is named, the phrase . . . ^ivd identifying it 



as the covenant involved in the giving of the law, a familiar 
idea, as is shown by Heb. (quoting Jer. 31®=) ^4 2 Cor. 3®- ‘‘ 
Sir. 24“ Ps. Sol. 10*. The irepa hia6r)K7} implied in 5 i 5 o hiad^- 
Kai and pCa. is left unnamed, but is evidently that of 
which faith is the basal principle and which is referred to in 
3I6-17 as a covenant in contrast with the law, which is not there 
designated as a covenant. 

els SovXeiav yevv&o'a^ “bringing forth children unto bond- 
age,” i. e., bearing children destined to be slaves. The par- 
ticiple is adjective in force and timeless (BMr 123, 420). Ap- 
plied to Hagar the phrase designates her as one who, being a 
slave woman, bears children who share her status of slavery. 
As applied to the Sinai covenant it refers to the fact that they 
who under this covenant were in the position of slaves as 
being in bondage to the law. Cf. 4K The form of the expres- 
sion, 7€wwcra, etc., is, of course, determined by the fact lit- 
erally taken; there is nothing in the spiritual experience exactly 
corresponding to the child-bearing. 

It is assumed in 0 . T* that in general the offspring of a man’s slaves 
were also his slaves. See Gen. 14^* 17'** The status of the children 
which a slave concubine bore to her master is not definitely defined. 
The Genesis story of Hagar and Ishmael indicates that the slave mother 
remained a slave at least in cases in which she had been a slave before 
becoming her master’s concubine, and that her son was not ipso facto 
the heir of his father (Gen. 21^®), but suggests that the status of the 
son was at the option of the father, 

^rts earlv ^'Ayap, ^‘which is Hagar.’^ The clause is best 
taken as identifying. On the force of see above on &TLPa 
and on that of ecrrCvj see dcrlvj above. This clause simply 
states that of the two women named above, Hagar represents 
in the allegory the covenant that proceeded from Sinai. 

26 . TO Ay oLp ^ivh opos iarrlv ip ^Apd^Ca, Now Hagar is 
Mount Sinai in Arabia.^' It is not the woman Hagar "'Ay ap) 
of whom the statement is made, either as a historical person or 
as a character in the narrative to which he is giving an allegori- 
cal interpretation, but either the word, in which case icrrip 
affirms the equivalence of the two expressions "'Ayap and 

IV j 24 25 


opos (note the neuter article; cf. W. XVHI 3; Rob. 766), or, 
by association of opos after ' 2 ivd with both^'ATap and the 
mountain (cf. WH. voL II, ad loc., citing as parallel cases 
Rom. 3^®). The clause accordingly implies that Mount 
Sinai was sometimes, directly or by implication, called Hagar 
or something sufficiently similar in sound to be so represented 
in Greek. Whether the statement is from the apostle or, as is 
on the whole more probable, a gloss from the hand of a scribe 
(see below, in discussion of the text), its intent is to confirm the 
previously affirmed identification of Hagar with the covenant 
proceeding from Sinai. Such a double name of the mountain 
has from the historical point of view no real value, of course, 
as proving a relation between Hagar and the Mount Sinai cov- 
enant; still less as proving that the favour of God rests on 
the spiritual followers of Abraham’s faith rather than on his 
physical descendants. But the statement is consonant with the 
allegorical method of interpretation which the whole paragraph 
illustrates. If it is a gloss, it is by that fact a parenthesis, and 
is probably so in any case. The use of Se (rather than-T^P) is 
probably due to the fact that as a parenthesis it is felt to be 
additional and incidental rather than a part of the main argu- 
ment. Cf. Th. s. V. 6, and, as illustrating the approximation 
of Se and ydp in meaning which led to their interchange, see 

The following are the readings of the first clause attested by ancient 
evidence : 

(a) Tb yScg Stvii 25 po«; hxtv: XCFG 33 (but 33* app. xh 51 ) f g Vg. 
Arm. Aeth. Orig. (both Lat. tr. and Gr. as testified by Athan.; see 
Zahn, p. 296, citing Goltz.). Sah. reads: quae vero mons Sina est. 
Goth, omits y&g. It is important to note, however, that adds Sv, 
reading: xh yip Stvti Bpo? IcttIv 8v h Tf] 'Apa^ltjc, *‘For Sinai is a 
mountain, being in Arabia.” But since without "Arap there would 
be no occasion to insert 8v, the probability is that "'Ayap has fallen 
out, and that the testimony of X is really in favour of the presence of 
^Ayap in the text, (b) xh Y<ip "Ayap Stvck Bgoq hxly: KLP 33** 
aJ. pier. Syr. (psh. et hard, txt.) Arm. Chrys. Theod. Mops. Thdrt, 
Thphyl. (c) xh ydcp ^Ayag 8po<; kaxh: d. (d) xh 5 ^ ^Ayocp Stvd 8po<; 

ABD 31, 442, 436, 40 lect. Syr. (hard. mg.). Boh.: "'Ayap hi Stv(i 
etc., some mss. omitting 54 . 

26 o 


Of these readings both the character of the witnesses to (b) and its 
apparently conflate character indicate that it is derivative; (c) is too 
slightly attested to be considered. Modern editors are divided be- 
tween (a) and (d), Westcott, Ltft., Zahn adopting (a), Hort, Ws. 
Sief. (d). The latter seems, on the whole, best supported. If the 
presence of Sv in S in effect makes that ms. a witness not against but 
for a text containing ''Ayotp (cf. Sief. ad loc,), the external evidence is 
distinctly more favourable to (d) than to (a) ; and transcriptional prob- 
ability is likewise in favour of (d), since whether through the accidental 
omission of AEA, or through a feeling of the difficulty of this reading, 
(d) is easily susceptible of modification into (a) while there is nothing 
in the form or meaning of (a) to make its conversion into (d) likely. 

The difficulty of interpretation, especially the absence of definite 
evidence of any usage that would account for the identification of 
Hagar and Sinai, either as names or places suggests the possibility of 
an interpolation at this point. Bentley (Letter to Mill, p. 45; accord- 
ing to Ellis, Bentleii Crit, Sac.y he afterwards changed his mind and 
adopted reading (a)) suggested that the words SivcS: Zgoq ladv iv 
*Apap{(y were a marginal gloss afterwards introduced into the text; 
and Holsten, Das Evangdium des Paulus, I. i, p. 171, al,, conjecture 
that the whole sentence xb . . . ’Apapfqt is an interpolation. Cf, 
Clemen, EinheitlickkeU der Paulinischen Brief pp. 118/. 

Either of these conjectural emendations would remove the obscurity 
of the passage as representing the thought of Paul, and transfer the 
words to another writer who would perhaps feel no necessity for a 
better basis for this additional piece of allegorising than his own imagi- 
nation, or who may have heard Mount Sinai called "Ay®? or the like. 
Of the two suggestions that of Holsten is the simpler and more prob- 
able, and, in view of the process by which the Pauline epistles were 
collected and transmitted, not in itself improbable. See notes on 
and 3*®. 

Precisely what the fact was of which the apc^^le thus avails himself 
(if he wrote the sentence) we do not with certainty know. It may 
have been that he was aware that the Arabians or certain tribes of them 
were called sons of Hagar (on-JD, ^Arrapnvof, Ps. 83 'Ayaptivof, 
I Chron. s“, cf, Ltft. ad loc,). Or he may have had in mind that there 
is an Arabic word, b^-gar, which may be reproduced in Hebrew as 
njn and signifies cliff , rock*'; it is possible that the word may have 
been applied by the Arabs to that particular mountain which in Paul's 
day was regarded as the scene of the giving of the law. To this it is 
no serious objection that the name of the mountain was on this theory 
un, while that of the woman was for scientific exactness 
in such a matter is not to be expected of an andent writer. In the 
absence of definite evidence, however, that the word ‘'Ayap, or anything 

26 i 

IV, 25 

dosely resembling it, was applied to a mountam also known asStvd, all 
such suggestions must remain conjectures only. See Ltft., detached 
note, pp. 197 J*. This fact has influenced Ltft. Wies. Zahn, et aL, to 
adopt the otherwise inferiorly attested reading 'zh ydp Sivd Spo? Icrrlv 
Iv Tjj 'Apa^{£?, interpreting it, however, variously. Ltft. translates: 
“For Sinai is a mountain in Arabia,” i. e., in the land of bondsmen 
themselves descended from Hagar, and finds in this statement a con- 
firmation not of Icrdv ‘'Ayap, but of BouXefav yevvfikra. Zahn 
interprets ‘^For Mount Sinai is in Arabia,” i. e., not in the promised 
land, the possession of which is the central element of the divine prom- 
ise; from which it follows that the Sinai covenant does not involve the 
fulfilment of the promise, but, on the contrary, the enslavement of 
those to whom it is given. Both interpretations perhaps involve Paul’s 
assuming a knowledge on the part of the Galatians hardly likely to be 
possessed by them; but the decisive reasons are against the text rather 
than against the interpretation. See textual note. Ell. and Sief. 
reading xh Zk "'Ayap understand the words Iv x% ' Apag^ijt as defining not 
the location of Mount Sinai, but the region in which the name Hagar 
is applied to Sinai. This would be entirely possible if, instead of 
Paul had written xaXel'cac (with the necessary change in the 
order of the words preceding Spoq), but of such a geographical expres- 
sion used in this sense in such a sentence as this no example is cited. 

avv<TTOL‘)(€l Se vvv ^lepoucraX^J/i, ^'and corresponds to the 
Jerusalem that now is.’^ Best understood as continuing ijns 
earlv "'Ay ap after the parenthetical to 8k "' Ay ap . . . 'Apa^la. 
Yet the logical subject of (rvvaroL'x^eX is rather "'Ayap than fjris 
(= pia 8ia6r}Kr})^ as Soi/XctJet yap indicates. The words con- 
tinue the allegorical explanation of the O. T. passage, point by 
point. ^‘The Jerusalem that now is’^ is manifestly used by 
metonymy for that Judaism of which Jerusalem was the centre. 

The military use of auvaTocxetv, “to stand in the same file” (Polyb. 
10. 23 (21)7) suggests that the two terms referred to are in the same 
column, on the same side of the parallelism. Thus Ltft., who repre- 
sents the thought thus: 

Hagar, the bond woman. Sarah, the freewoman. 

Ishmael, the child after the flesh. Isaac, the child of promise. 

The old covenant. The new covenant. 

The earthly Jerusalem, The heavenly Jerusalem. 

But the language of the apostle (note the use of the singular number 
and the term-by-term parallelism) indicates that he is not simply put- 



ting things into two columns, one containing all that falls on the side 
of the bond and the other all that belongs to the free, but is pointing 
out the equivalents of the several elements of the narrative allegori- 
cally treated. If, then, it is necessary to take the word in the precise 
sense suggested by Polybius, the following would seem to be the dia- 
gram that would represent the thought, the items i, 2, 3, 4, at the 
head of the several columns representing the four elements of the nar- 
rative on which the apostle puts an allegorical interpretation, and the 
items below each of these representing the things for which they stand. 


Isaac, born according 
to promise. 

The children of Jeru- 
salem above, ac- 
cording to promise, 

Yet it is doubtful whether our interpretation should be so strictly 
governed by the Polybius passage (which is itself not perfectly clear, 
and to which no parallel has been cited). The use of the verb in 
Musonius (cf. L. & S.) in a less technical sense, and the use of auaxotxla 
in Aristotle (Metapk i. 5, 6 (986a"), ei al.,) to denote the relation of the 
members of a correlative pair, such as ‘^odd and even,'' right and 
left,” suggests that Paul here meant simply correlative to,” ‘‘in 
the parallelism between narrative and its allegorical significance is the 
corresponding term.” The statement of Sief. that this sense would 
require dvctciTotxet is true only in the sense that if the apostle had 
had in mind two columns in one of which stood the terms of the narra- 
tive itself and in the other antithetically term for term their spiritual 
significates, he would probably have used dvriaroixel. But the idea 
of correspondence, equivalence, calls not for dvrtcrcoixet but ouvorrotxeL 

Sov\ev€L yhp nerh r&v avrijs^ ^‘for she is in bond- 

age with her children’’: justification of the parallelism just 
aflarmed between Hagar and Jerusalem. As Hagar, a slave, 
bore children that by that birth passed into slavery, so the 
Jerusalem that now is and her children, viz., all the adherents of 
legalistic Judaism which has its centre in Jersualem, are in 
bondage to law. 


Hagar, the bond 
woman, bearing 
children unto bond- 


The covenant from 

( б ) 

The Jerusalem that 
now is. 


Ishmael, born after 
the flesh, born unto 

The children of Jeru- 
salem in bondage 
to legalism. 


Sarah, the freewo- 
man (bearing free 


The new covenant. 

( 6 ) 

Jerusalem that is 

IV, 2^-26 263 

26 . ^ Se aPCt) ^lepoixxaXi) jx iXet/depa icrrCv^ “ But the Jerusalem 
above is free.” Instead of a formally perfect antithesis, either 
the Jerusalem that now is, and the Jerusalem that is to be, or 
the Jerusalem on earth and the Jerusalem above, the apostle 
mingles the two forms. The same point of view from which 
the seed of Abraham are, not the Jews, but believers in Christ, 
makes the new Jerusalem not the Jewish capital, but the com- 
munity of believers in Jesus the Christ, and the conception of 
that community as destined soon to take up its abode in heaven 
(i Thes. 4^^*) and as already living the heavenly life (c/. Phil. 
^2Qjr. CoL 3^-^) converts the Jerusalem that is to be, which would 
be the strict antithesis to the Jerusalem that now is, into the 
Jerusalem above (already existent). Heb. 12^®®* (see esp. v.^) 
presents a similar contrast between Mount Sinai as the place 
and symbol of the giving of the law, and the heavenly Jerusalem 
as representing the community of believers (cf. v.^), probably 
independently developed from the same root, not, of course, 
the source of PauPs expression here. The freedom referred to 
in €ktr£€pa is manifestly the same that is spoken of in 2* 5^, and 
implied in antithesis to the SovXeia spoken of in 

The conception of a restored and beautiful Jerusalem appears even 
in the O. T., Ezek., chaps- 40 Jf. Zech., chap. 2 Hag. s®"®, and in other 
pre-Christian Jewish writings: Sir. $6^^- Tob. 13®"“ 14’' Ps. Sol. 17” In 
I Enoch go®** the displacement of the old house by a new one is pre- 
dicted (c/. Hag. 2®). See Bous., ReL d. Jtd.\ p. 273; Charles, The 
Book of Enoch j note on 90®*. This conception of a new Jerusalem 
(though the precise phrase is apparently found first in Rev. 3^® 21*, cf 
4 Ezr. 7** i3®«; Apoc. Bar. 32®, which, like the Apocal)!pse of John, were 
written after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A. D.) doubtless fur- 
nished the apostle with the basis of his conception here expressed 

^ris icrrlv pijrTjp fjp&v* ''which is our mother.” The form 
of expression is derived from the allegory of Hagar and 
Sarah; tip&v refers to believers in Christ in general; the idea 
literally expressed would be, of which (community) we are 
members. The addition of Travroov by TR. may perhaps be 
traced to Polyc. Phil, chap. 3, or to the influence of Rom. 4^®, 
On the force of see note on ariva (v,®^). 



27 . y^parrat yhp Ev(ppdp 9 f)ri^ (TTeipa 17 ov TiKrov<ra* 

pfj^ov Kal ^oiyo’oj', 17 ovk wSivovcra- on mWd rd riKva Trjs 
ipijpov paWov ^ Ti]S expv(Tii]S top apdpa,'* ‘‘For it is written, 
Rejoice thou barren woman that bearest not, break forth and 
shout, thou that travailest not. For more are the children of 
the desolate than of her that hath the husband/^ The quota- 
tion is from Isa. 54S and follows exactly the text of the Lxx 
(B«AQ), which neglects to translate the “ rejoicing/' 

“singing,” of the Hebrew. In the prophet the words are prob- 
ably to be joined with 52^^. they are conceived of as addressed 
to the ideal Zion, bidding her rejoice in the return of the exiles, 
Yahweh leading (cf, 52 The barren woman is Jerusalem 
in the absence of the exiles, the woman that hath a husband is 
Jerusalem before the exile; and the comparison signifies that her 
prosperity after the return from exile was to exceed that which 
she had enjoyed before the captivity. There may possibly 
underlie the words of the prophet a reference to Sarah and 
Hagar as suggesting the symbolism of the passage (cf. 51*), but 
there is no clear indication of this. The apostle, also, in quot- 
ing them may have thought of the barren woman as corre- 
sponding to Sarah, who till late in life had no child, and the 
woman that hath a husband to Hagar. But Ms cMef thought 
is of the O. T. passage as justifying or illustrating Ms concep- 
tion of a new redeemed Jerusalem whose glory is to surpass 
that of the old, the language being all the more appropriate for 
Ms purpose because it involved the same figure of Jerusalem as 
a mother, wMch he had himself just employed, unless, indeed, 
v.^ is itself suggested by the passage which was about to be 
quoted. There is a possible further basis for the apostle's use 
of the passage in the fact that its context expresses ^e thought 
that God is the redeemer not of Israel after the flesh, but of 
those in whose heart is Ms law (</. esp. v.’). But whether 
the apostle had this context in mind is not indicated. The yap 
is doubtless confirmatory, and connects the whole statement 
with iarrlv firjrrjp 

28 . vpe 2 s 54 xarA To-aAic iwayyeXias r^icpa 

“And ye, brethren, like Isaac, are children of promise." With 

rv, 27-29 


this sentence the apostle takes up his allegorical development 
of the 0. T. narrative at a new point. Having in ^ 
developed it with reference to the two women, which he has 
made to represent the two communities, and incidentally en- 
forced his thought by a quotation from the prophets, he now 
makes use of the sons, Isaac and Ishmael, and more pointedly 
applies his allegory to his readers. Note the address vpieis 5e, 
ade\<j)OL, As Isaac was born in fulfilment of a promise, not in 
the usual course of nature, so Paul assures the Galatians, they 
also are children of promise, whose standing with God rests 
not on physical descent, but on the promise made to Abraham, 
which has already been interpreted as applying to all who have 
faith ( 3 ^* *» ^ 0 ). Se is continuative, introducing this element of 
the allegorical interpretation of the 0. T. passage as an addi- 
tion to that of 

As in 4.^^, evidence is very evenly divided between . . . iaxi 
and . . . iaptiv. The former is attested by the group BDG, 
supported by 33, 424** Sah., the latter by KAC with the concurrence 
of LP f Boh. and Cyr. and the great body of the Syrian authorities. 
Transcriptional probability favours byslq . . . hzij the change of 
this form to the first person being more easily explicable as due to 
assimilation to w, than the reverse. is unobjectionable on 

grounds of intrinsic probability, such changes of person being charac- 
teristic of Paul; cf, 

Kax& in the sense ^^like,” after the manner of,” occurs not infre- 
quently in classic writers (L. & S. B. Ill 3) and in N. T. C/. 
Eph, 4^ I Pet. 4* Heb. 8®. The position of i%ay^zk(aq (gen. of 
characteristic) is emphatic. The term is qualitative, but the reference 
is undoubtedly to the promise already repeatedly referred to in the 
epistle (31®- *2). Whose children they are, whether sons of God 

or sons of Abraham is not emphasised; but the context as a whole 
implies the latter. To take as meaning children of the Jerusalem 
above (Sief.) is to insist upon a closeness of connection with v.^^ which 
is not only not justified by anything in this v. but is practically excluded 
by the phrase xaxdc Taadbt and vv.”*^* 

29* aXX’ &<T7rep Tore 6 Karh adpica yevvrjdils eS/co/ce rbv 
Karh TTPeupay oSto)s koI vvv. “But as then he that was born 
according to the flesh persecuted him that was born according 
to the Spirit, so also now/’ The persecution which the Gentile 



Christians had suffered at the hands of the descendants of 
Abraham according to the flesh, the apostle adroitly converts 
to the purposes of his allegorical argument by pointing out 
that this fact had its analogue in the relations of Ishmael and 
Isaac. In speaking of the persecution of those who are accord- 
ing to the Spirit the apostle probably has in mind chiefly the 
persistent efforts of the judaisers to induce the Galatians to take 
on the burden of the law. Cf. 510. C/. also though 

as shown there that passage does not necessarily refer to per- 
secutions. That persecutions of a more violent nature and at 
the hands of Jews (cf, i Thes. 2^®' are also in mind is possible 
but not probable. The persecution of Isaac probably refers to 
Gen. 21^, and the traditions that had gathered about it, but 
the apostle may also have had in mind the mutual hostility of 
the nations supposed to have descended from the two brothers. 

The adversative <iXX<Sc introduces a fact which is on the face of it in 
contrast with the preceding statement. 6 xaxd adpxa is, of course, in 
the literal sense Ishmael, Cf, on v.^. In the allegorical interpretation 
it stands for those who are descendants of Abraham, but do not walk 
in the footsteps of his faith. The Lxx of Gen. 21° reads izaC^ovxac 
psTd Taadx ttou ulou lauTii]?. On the possibility that this represents 
an original Hebrew different from our present Hebrew, and on the 
rabbinic expansion of the incident, see Ltft. ad loc. The Talmud 
(Beresch. Rabb. 53^0 says: ‘'Dixit Ismael Isaaco: Eamus et videamus 
portionem nos tram in agro; et tulit Ismael arcum et sagittas, et jacu- 
latus est Isaacum et prae se tulit, ac si luderet.^' (Quoted by Wies. 
ad loc.) For xarcb ocveupia we should naturally espect licaYyeXfav 
(329) or ZC i%ct'xyeXi<x(; (v.^). The introduction of xveOpia might natu- 
rally be explained as a substitution of tlie giver of the promise for the 
promise. But while Paul speaks of the Spirit as the content of the 
promise (3“), he is not wont to speak of the promises or prophecies as 
given by the Spirit (cf. Mk. and in the absence of such usage it 
seems necessary to suppose that the phrase stands in the clause by a 
species of trajection from the dause which expresses the second element 
of the comparison, oStwc xal vuv. The full sentence would have read 
Tbv %axdc oUtox; xal vOv 6 xord adcpxa 

Tbv Tcveupux. Cf. Rom. 8*. That xveupia is in the apostle^s vocab- 
ulary the usual antithesis to adpS (cf, 3* 5*«' 6* Rom. 8*^-) may 

also have had some influence. If the phrase be thought of strictly 
with reference to Isaac it must be explained by the fact that the prom- 

IV, 2 g~ 3 i 267 

ise pertaining to Isaac involved also the ultimate bestowal of the 
Spirit. Cf. But see also Philo, Leg. alleg. Ill 219 (77): 
ly^vyiQcjev 6 x6pio<;. 

30. oKKh TiXeyei ^ ypacftij; ‘^^'E/c^aXe r^v 'iracdio’Krjv Kal rov 
vlov avTTjSy ov yap pr) KXrjpopop'i^cret 6 vlos rrjs TtaihiaKijS perh 
rod vlov ttjs eXevGepa^/* ^‘But what saith the scripture? 
Cast out the maid servant and her son: for the son of the maid 
servant shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman/' As 
over against the fact that the Gentile Christians are children of 
promise he set in contrast the fact of their persecution, so over 
against this last he introduces with aXXd the language of scrip- 
ture concerning the persecutor. The quotation is from Gen. 
21^®, and follows the Lxx except that it omits ravrrjp 
after TraidL<XKrjp and substitutes Trjs iXevdepas for pov Tcraa/c 
at the end. The language is that of Sarah to Abraham, but 
probably neither this fact nor the statement of v.^^ that God 
said to Abraham, 'Tn all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken 
unto her voice, has anything to do with Pauks use of this 
passage here. From the point of view of the allegorical inter- 
pretation every scripture is significant; cf. under v.^^. Alle- 
gorically interpreted the expulsion of Ishmael points to a 
rejection of the children of Abraham according to the flesh in 
favour of the sons of Abraham by faith. 

31. aSeX^ot, ovk ecrpep TraidldKrjs r^Kva oKXd rr^s 

eXevO^paf, “Therefore, brethren, we are children not of a 
maid servant, but of the freewoman.’’ The omission of the 
article before itaiUcrKTjs gives to the term a qualitative empha- 
sis: ‘^not of a slave woman while the article inserted before 
ekevdipas makes this expression refer specifically to the free 
mother Sarah, and to that which in the allegorical interpreta- 
tion corresponds to Sarah, the Christian community or church. 
Translated into terms more directly expressing the spiritual 
fact the sentence means that we who have faith belong not to 
a community or nation that is in bondage to the legal statutes 
{cf. but to that commimity of believers whose relation 

to God is that of sons, having the spirit of sonship, not of bond- 



age (w.®' ^). Taken in its connection it constitutes a brief 
statement of the doctrine of the rejection of Israel according to 
the flesh which is expounded at length in Rom., chaps. 9-1 1. 
That the conclusion is derived from an allegorical argument in 
no way diminishes its value as a disclosure of Paul’s thought, 
the allegory being itself resorted to for the very purpose of pre- 
senting his thought more convincingly to his readers. Cf, on 
v.21. The validity of the argument itself as a piece of exegesis 
depends, of course, upon the validity of the allegorical method 
in general and its applicability to this passage in particular. 
Its postulates are that the O. T. story of Isaac and Ishmael 
bears a meaning which is to be derived from it by reading it as 
an allegory, and that Isaac represents the spiritual seed of 
Abraham, viz., those who, by faith like Abraham’s, come into 
filial relation to Gk)d like that of free sons to a father, Ishmael 
standing for those whose relation to Abraham is simply that of 
natural descent. Whether Paul himself accepted these prem- 
ises and ascribed a corresponding validity to his argument, or 
only meant by such an argument to bring his thought before 
his readers in a form which would appeal to them, is, as said 
above, not wholly dear. Presumably he did conceive that the 
argument had some real value; though in view of his use of 
scripture in general it can scarcely be doubted that it was for 
him not determinative of his view, but only confirmatory of an 
opinion reached in some other way. On TraihlaKTjy cf. v.®^. 

This verse is so evidently by its very terms — note TaiUcTKrjs^ 
iKeudepas, etc., occurring in the preceding verses but not after 
this point — the conclusion of the allegorical argument intro- 
duced in v.^b that it is surprising that it should ever have been 
thought of otherwise. So, e. g., Meyer. It is a matter of less 
consequence whether v.®^ is an inference from v.®® or the sum- 
mary of But since from v.®®, even if the premise, “we 
as Christians correspond to Isaac” (cf. Sief.), be supplied, the 
natural conclusion is not “we are children of the free,” but, “we 
as children of the freewoman are heirs of the promise”; it is 
more probable that we should take this sentence as the summa- 
tion of the whole allegorical argument (cf. the use of Sto in 

IV, 31 


1 Cor. 12^® I Thes. 5^0 a-iid as expressing the thought which 
the apostle wished by this whole paragraph to impress upon 
the minds of the Galatians. 


I. Exhortations directly connected with the doctrine of 
the letter (5^-6®). 

{a) Appeal to the Galatians to stand fast in their free- 
dom in Christ (5^’^*). 

Having in defended his own independent right to 

preach the gospel to the Gentiles uncontrolled by any others, 
even those who were apostles before him, and in chaps. 3, 4 
having answered the arguments of his opponents in favour of 
the imposition of legalism upon Gentile Christians, the apostle 
now passes to fervent exhortation of his readers not to sur- 
render the freedom which they have in Christ Jesus. 

“With this freedom Christ set us free: stand, therefore, and be not 
entangled again in a yoke of bondage. ^Behold, I, Paul, say to you 
that if ye shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to 
you. ^And I protest again to every man that receiveth circumcision 
that he is bound to do the whole law. ^Ye have severed your retor- 
tion to Christ, ye who are seeking to be justified in law. Ye 
have fallen away from grace. ^For we, by the Spirit, by faith, 
wait for a hoped-for righteousness. ^For in Christ Jesm neither 
circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but faith work- 
ing through love. ’^Ye were running well; who hindered you from 
obeying truth ? ^This persuasion is not from him that calleth you. 

little leaven is leavening the whole lump. have confidence, 
in the Lord, respecting you that ye will take no other view than this; 
but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may 
be. ^^And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, why 
am I still being persecuted ? Then is the stumbling-block of the 
cross done away with. would that they who are disturbing you 
would even have themselves mutilated. 



1 . eKevOepla rjixoM l^pKxrbs rj\evdep(j^(T€v (TrijK€T€ oTfV koX 
fji^ TTokip &i/\€ta9 €Ve%€cr^€. With this freedom Christ 
set ns free: stand, therefore, and be not entangled again in a 
yoke of bondage.^’ With this reading of the text (see textual 
note below) these words are not to be attached to 4^^ (so Zahn, 
e. g., reading ^ ekevdepia), but constitute an independent sen- 
tence in which, the allegory of being left behind, the apostle 
expresses himself in language akin to that of The sen- 

tence, without connective particle ovp or yap to mark its rela- 
tion to what precedes, constitutes a transition paragraph of 
itself, on the one side a summary of 421-31 without its alle- 
gorical terminology) if not also of chaps. 3, 4 as a whole, and 
on the other an introduction to the exhortations of chap. 5. 
The article before ekevdepCa is restrictive, referring to that 
freedom from the law with which the whole epistle from 2I on 
has dealt; see esp. 4^‘ On Xptcrr^ ^Xexjdepo^aep cf, for 
substance of thought 31® 4^. The sentence is, in fact, an epitome 
of the contention of the whole letter. 

The variations of the textual evidence are so complex as to make 
clear exposition of them difficult. The chief variations may be set 
forth as follows: 

I. Respecting the words immediately accompanying IXeuOepfqs: 

1. TB ^Xeu 0 ep{(jc (without v following): i< 5 ABCD*HP 31, 33, 442, 

al. Sah. Arm. Syr. (hard.) Euthal. Thrdt. Dam.; fcbp eX.: 

Boh.; sv T^: Chr. 

2. Tg IXeu6Epfqc Di»«*‘«KL, the great body of cursives, Syr. 

(psh. et hard.) Marc. Chr. Cyr. Thdrt. Thphyl. Oec. al. 

3. V IXeuOepfQt: FG d f g Vg. Goth. Tert. Or. Victorin. Hier. 

Ambrst. Aug. 

n. Respecting the position of ■JjpLa?: 

1. IXeuSep. Xp.: K*ABDFGP 31, 33, 327, 2125, some 

mss. of the Vulg. Goth. Cyr. Dam. 

2. IXeo6gp. Xp. X®CEX, most of the cursives, Chr. Thrdt. 

Tert. Victorin. Hier. 

3. Xp. fjXeuOlpoxjev •fjpi.a?: Thphyl, (so Ltft.). 
ni. Respecting o 3 v : 

1. After IXsuBep^g: C®EX and many currives, Marc. Dam. 

Hiphyl. Oec. 

2. After av&xcTe: t^ABCFGP 33, 104, 336, 424’**, 442, 1912, 

f g Goth. Boh. Sah. Eth. Arm. Bas. Cyr. Or Victorin. Aug. 

V, I 271 

3. Omit in both places: D d 263, 1908, Vg. Syr. (hard) Thdrt. 

Chr. Dam, 

The weight of external evidence thus strongly favours ^75 IXeuSepCg: 

Xptcnrbg f)Xeu0^pco<jev' otSv, and the originality of this 

reading is confi rmed by the fact that it accounts for all the rest. It is 
adopted by Ln. Tdf. Alf, WH. Sief. Those who have preferred 
another reading (EU. Ltft.: Tf) eXeuSeptqc v; Zahn: v sXeuOepfc?) have 
done so on the ground of the syntactical difficulty of eXeuOepfQ: as a 
Kmitation of f)Xeu0^p(i>crev. But this construction, though unusual, 
does not seem to be impossible (see exegetical notes). On the other 
hand, Hort’s suggestion that Tfj is a primitive error for lx’ (cf. v, 
lx’ IXeu0ep((3E IxXi^GiQTe) has much to commend it. The only choice is 
between zf^ IX. etc., which is undoubtedly the parent of all the 
other existing readings, and lx’ IX. as the imattested original of the 

The dative rjj IXeuSspiqc is to be explained as a dative of instrument 
(not intensive as in Lk. 22^®, IxtOupLfgj lxe86pnQaa, and Jas. 5^^, xpoaeuxn 
xpo(js6§aTo, in which case the noun, being qualitative, would be with- 
out the article), but descriptive, '‘by (bestowing) the freedom (spoken 
of above) Christ made us free”; cf, Jn. 12^^, xoCtp Bav&ztp 
dcxoevilicrxetv. To this view the article is no objection: cf, i Thes. 3®, 
xdtoif} ^ap^ V xix(go\^yj where the relative v limiting xcdpop*ev has all 
the definiteness of z% Or it may be a dative of destination (cf. 

Acts 22 * 5 : xpolxetvav aOxbv Totqlpt^otv: “They stretched him out for the 
thongs” with which he was to be scourged). The meaning would then 
be: “ For the freedom (above spoken of) Christ set us free.” The latter 
interpretation is favoured somewhat by v.^^, and perhaps by the ab- 
sence of any exact parallel to such a use of verb and cognate noun 
with the article as the former view supposes; while against it is the 
unusualness of such a dative as it supposes (even Acts 22^5 is not quite 
certain) and the probability that Paul would have expressed this idea 
by eh IXeuOeptov (cf, Rom. 5*). On the whole the former construc- 
tion is the more probable, if zfi be the correct reading. It is, perhaps, 
still more likely that Paul wrote lx’ (see textual note above), in which 
case the meaning Vould be substantially that of the dative denoting 

a post-classical word, derived from Icnn^xa, has with Paul 
the meaning not simply “to stand” (as in the gospels), but with inten- 
sive force, “to stand firm.” Cf, i Cor. 16^* Phil, i*’’ 4^, etc. xdeXtv 
recalls the fact that as Gentiles they had been in slavery, and classes 
the burden of Jewish legalism with that of heathenism. Cf, 4® and 
notes there. The omission of the article with BouXs^a? gives to the 
phrase a qualitative force, and though the reference is clearly to the 
yoke of legalism, is appropriate after xdcXtv because the new yoke 



whicli he would have them avoid is not identical with that previously 

— sl frequent classical word, ^'to be held [in/’ '^to be en- 
snared,” is in the present tense, denoting action in progress, not prob- 
ably because Paul thinks of them as already entangled (so that the 
expression would mean '‘cease to be entangled”), but because he is 
thinking about and warning them against not only the putting of 
their necks into the yoke, but the continuous state of subjection which 
would result therefrom. 

2 . T[ 5 e iyob IlauXos 'Keyo^ viitv on iav TepireiJLvrjade Xptorroy 
vfjias ovdh a)<f>e\'ij(reL. “Behold, I, Paul, say to you that if ye 
shall be circumcised, Christ will be of no advantage to you/’ 
The acceptance of circumcision is, under the circumstances 
then existing in the Galatian churches, the acceptance of the 
principle of legalism, the committal of the Galatians to a rela- 
tion to God wholly determined by conformity to statutes and 
leaving no place for Christ or the development of spiritual life 
through faith in him and spiritual fellowship with him. This 
is the position which the apostle has taken throughout the 
letter {cf, 2^®®- 3^^), The possibility of any compromise between 
the two conceptions of religion he does not consider, but points 
out the logical outcome of the adoption of the principle of legal- 
ism, which he conceives to be involved in the acceptance of cir- 
cumcision. Though circumcision is mentioned here for the 
first time in direct relation to the Galatians, the manner in 
which it is spoken of in this paragraph and in (confirmed 
by the implications of chap. 3) makes it certain that it was this 
rite especially that the opponents of Paul were urging the 
Galatians to adopt, or at least that on this the contest was at 
this moment concentrated. Though the sentence is intro- 
duced without ydpy the purpose of it is evidently to enforce 
the exhortation of v.^ Its separation from that v. in a dis- 
tinct paragraph is justified only by the double relation which 
it sustains on the one hand to 4^^ and on the other to this 
and the following sentences. 

The first three words of this sentence, none of them strictly neces- 
sary to the thought, serve to give emphasis to the whole statement 

V, 1-2 273 

that follows. As an exclamation Paul elsewhere empIo3rs not 
but iBo6; see i Cor. is®‘ Gal. et al,; IfSe in Rom. ii** and ^fSsrs in 
Gal. 6“ are proper imperatives with limiting object. For other in- 
stances of iydi, emphatic, see i^* 2i‘»' 4}^ 510. u 517 ^ Fqj. 

nauXoq, see i Thes. 2^8 2 Cor. 10^ Eph. 31 Col. see also Col, 4H 
2 Thes. 31^. The intent of the words here is doubtless, as in most of 
the above instances, to give to what he is about to say all the weight 
of his personal influence. 

The form of the conditional clause ld:v iceptTlyLviQcjOe, referring to a 
future possibility, reflects the fact that the question whether they will 
be circumcised is still pending. Cf. 1 «. The use of the present tense, 
at first thought surprising, indicates that the apostle is not thinking 
of circumcision as a simple (possible future) fact, or result accom- 
plished, but of the attempt or decision to be circumcised, the verb 
being substantially conative in force; see note on ^psarxov in What 
the apostle says is not that to be or to have been, as a matter of fact, 
circumdsed would render Christ of no avail to them (see the contrary 
stated in v.«), but that their seeking or receiving circumcision under 
the circumstances under which it is being urged upon them would 
do so. Observe the use of the present tense, also, in v.» 6^2. w i Cor. 7'*. 
The aorist in 2*, on the other hand, was necessary because of the resul- 
tative force of the whole phrase. The view of Alford, that the present 
tense “implies the continuance of a habit, ‘if you will go on being 
circumdsed/ ” though grammatically unobjectionable, is excluded by the 
fact that circumcision could be thought of as a habit, not in respect 
to individuals, but only as concerns the community; in which case it 
would follow that Paul's thought was that if the community continued 
the already existing practice of circumcision, the community would 
have no benefit from Christ; whereas, on the contrary, v confirmed 
by the apostle's constant teaching concerning justification, shows that re- 
lation to Christ pertains to the individual, not to the community, 
Alford's explanation, moreover, fails to account for the present tense in 
*icsptTeiJLvo|jL 4 vq>, and is, therefore, probably not applicable to 
The language, therefore, furnishes no basis for the conclusion that the 
Galatians had already begun the practice of circumcision. 

On cf. Jn. 6®* Rom. 2®® i Cor. 13®. There is no 

ground for assuming an exclusive reference to any specific point of 
future time, as to the parousia or the judgment. The absence of any 
specific reference to these events, such as is expressed in Rom. 2i®» 
or implied in Rom. makes it natural to assume that the future 

dates from the time indicated in the subordinate clause; and this is 
confirmed by the use of the aorists xaT'rjpYfjOtrce and in v.^ 

which see. 



3 . napTvpoixai Se TraXt?' Travrl avOpdritco wepi.TepvopS'^ Sri 
6(])€tXir7]S icrrlv oXou rov vopop Trot^crat, ‘‘And I protest 
again to every man that receiveth circumcision that he is bound 
to do the whole law.’^ Joined to v.^ by 5 e' this sentence sup- 
plements that one by a further reason why the Galatians should 
not receive circumcision. Not only do they thereby lose any 
advantage which the relation to Christ would confer, but they 
assume a heavy burden. The acceptance of circumcision is in 
principle the acceptance of the whole legalistic scheme. The rea- 
sons that can be urged in favour of circumcision apply equally 
to every statute of the law. That Paul points out this logical 
consequence of circumcision implies that the judaisers had not 
done so. They were now urging the Galatians to accept cir- 
cumcision as the rite by which they could become sons of Abra- 
ham and participators in the blessings of the Abrahamic cov- 
enant (cf, chap. 3 passim ) ; they had already persuaded them to 
adopt the cycle of Jewish festivals (4^^), perhaps as serving to 
mark them off from their heathen compatriots, perhaps because 
of the appeal which these observances would make to the Gala- 
tians. On the question whether the judaisers had imposed or 
endeavoured to impose upon their consciences any other require- 
ments of the law, see on 4^°. It is certain only that the Gala- 
tians had adopted the festival cycle, that they were undecided 
concerning circumcision, and that the judaisers had not pro- 
posed to them to undertake to keep the whole law. 

M.(x^6poyiai without obj. acc. signifies, not ''to call to witness (so 
with obj. acc. in Soph. Eur. et al,), but "to afl&nn,” “to protest’^ 
(Plato, PhiL 47C.; Jos. Bdl. 3. 354 (8^; Acts 20*0 26®* Eph. 4 ^ 0 j 
differing from ^prup^ in that it denotes a strong asseveration, not 
simple testimony. 

ndXtv, “again,” can not be imderstood as referring either to the 
content of v.», of which this is regarded as a repetition (Ltft.), for the 
two verses, though related, are not identical in thought; or to any 
previous passage in this epistle, since there is none in which this state- 
ment is made; nor can it be taken as marking this verse as a second 
papTupte, of different content from the former one, for in that case it 
would have preceded the verb, as in Mt, 4^ 5*3 Rom. 15^“- It must, 
therefore, refer to a statement previously made to the Galatians, and 
in that case probably to a statanent made on the occasion referred to 

V, 3-4 275 

in 4^® (c^).tq0s6(ov) and i®. Cf. notes on these passages and 521. The 
present passage thus furnishes some confirmatory evidence that Paul 
had either visited the Galatians or written to them since the visit 
spoken of in 4^®; since definitely anti-legalistic instruction at that time 
before the legalistic influence had been exerted among them is improb- 
able, though not, indeed, impossible. 

The words tcocvtI dcvOpcixq) TcgptTepLvo^vcp mean not, “to every one 
who has been circumcised^^ (which would call for the perfect 
TuepiTeTpLVTr3(Jiv(i) or aorist lueptTpLTQOivrt), but 'Ho every man that 
receives drcumcision.’^ Cf, BMT 124. The warning is addressed 
not to the man who has already been circumcised but (like edfcv 
xepnrIpLviQaOe, v.®) to the one who is contemplating circumcision. 

’0<petXiTif3(; is one who is under obligation, one who is bound, 6<peOset, 
to do a certain thing; here in effect one who binds himself; for the obli- 
gation is, as the context shows, one which he ought not to assume. 
Cf, contra Rom. 

''OXov Tbv v6pLov refers to the whole body of O. T. statutes, legalisti- 
cally interpreted. See detached note on N6pi.0(;, V 2. (c), p. 457. For a 
Gentile to receive circumcision is to commit himself logically to the 
whole legalistic system. The clear implication of the sentence is that 
the believer in Christ is under no such obligation. The freedom of the 
believer in Christ is not simply from the law’s condemnation of him 
who does not obey its statutes, or from the law as a means of justi- 
fication, but from the obligation to render obedience to these statutes. 
The Galatians are not simply not to seek justification by circumcision; 
they are not to be circumcised; they are not to do the whole law, 

4. tcarrjpyijdrjTe airb ' oXrives iv vopto SiKaLOvadey 
have severed your relation to Christ, ye who are seek- 
ing to be justifiied in law/^ KarrjpyrjOrjre airb Xpicrrov repeats 
in effect the Xptcrrbs vpas ovdev d)(f)e\'^(T€L of v.^, and like that 
verse expresses forcibly the apostle’s thought that the adop- 
tion of legalism is the repudiation of Christ. The two methods 
of obtaining righteousness are incompatible. He who turns to 
one foregoes the other. Notice the direct address to the Gala- 
tians, much more impressive than a statement of a general 

Some Syrian authorities and Boh. read toO Xptfftou, but XpecrroO 
is sustained by practically all pre-Syrian evidence, KBCD al. On 
Paul’s usage of Xptcrcic; and h Xpta'r6<;, cf, detached note on The TiUes 
and ’Predicates of Jesus, p. 395. 



'Ev v6y.(i) evidently has the same meaning as in 3“ {q, ©.), “in the 
sphere of’’ (more specifically, “on the basis of”) “legal obedience to 
statutes/’ thus equivalent to IS epY<i>v vIjjlou in 2i«, etc. Stxatoua6s 
is conative. The present can not mean “ are {i. e. , have been) justified ” ; 
and a progressive present proper, “are in the process of being justi- 
fied” is excluded by the fact that Paul thinks of justification not as a 
process but an act, and more decisively by his repeated assertion that 
no man is actually justified in law (chap. 3“ Rom. 320). 

There is no reason to regard the assertion of this sentence as hypo- 
thetical; it must rather be understood as referring to persons among 
the Galatians who, having accepted the legalistic principle, were seek- 
ing justification in law (cf. 410). Only, in view of i« 51- etc., it can 
not be supposed to designate the Galatians as a whole, or in view of 
V.2, be understood as necessarily implying that they have carried their 
legalism to the extent of being circumcised. Wherever in the epistle 
the apostle speaks of circumcision, it is as of a future possibility to be 
prevented. This excludes not the possibility of some having already 
been circumcised, but the general adoption of circumcision; but there 
is no positive indication that any have accepted it. 

KaTaprlw, properly meaning “to make ineffective,” is used in Rom. 
72. «, and here in the passive with dic6, meaning “to be without effect 
from,” “to be unaffected by,” “to be without effective relation to.” 
The explanation of the idiom as a brachylogical expression for 
xatiQpY'^OTQ're xal (Ltft., Sief., et al.), and the comparison 

of Rom. 93 and 2 Cor. ii» as analogous examples, are scarcely defensi- 
ble; for while in these latter instances the expressed predicate applies 
to the subject independently of the phrase introduced by dcx 6 , and the 
verb denoting separation is simply left to be supplied in thought, this 
is not the case with xaTapyeiaGac dcxl. The idiom is rather to be ex- 
plained as a case of rhetorical inversion, such as occurs in Rom. 7^ 
e 6 ava'ccd 0 TjTe vIpKp, where consistency with both preceding and fol- 
lowing context would require h v 6 pLo<; l 0 avaT<; 50 tj 6 plTv, Cf. the Eng- 
lish expression, “He was presented with a gift,” for “A gift was pre- 
sented to him.” The use of the aorist tense, denoting a past event 
viewed as a simple fact, has, in contrast with the present 8 ixatoO<i 0 e 
a certain rhetorical force; as if the apostle would say; “Your justifica- 
tion in law, which is but an attempt, has already resulted in separation 
from Christ as a fact.” The English perfect best expresses the force 
of an aorist in such cases as this, when the event belongs to the imme- 
diate past {<f. '&MT 46, 52). 

^(japiToy i^erea-are. “Ye have fallen away from grace.” 
The article with ;\^apiTos marks the word as referring specifi- 
cally to that grace of God or of Christ which was the distinctive 

V, 4“”5 


element of the gospel which Paxil had preached to the Gala- 
tians. Cf, I^ and special note on Xapts. Grace, by virtue of 
which God accepts as righteous those who have faith, itseK ex- 
cludes, and is excluded by, the principle of legalism, according 
to which the deeds of righteousness which one has performed 
are accredited to him as something which he has earned. Cf. 
3^2 Rom. 4® II®. They, therefore, who are seeking justification 
by the way of legalism have fallen away from, abandoned, the 
divine grace. Logically viewed, the one conception excludes 
the other; experientially the one experience destroys the other. 
One can not with intellectual consistency conceive of God as 
the bookkeeping God of legalism and at the same time the 
gracious God of the Pauline gospel, who accepts men because 
of their faith. One can not live the life of devotion to the keep- 
ing of statutes, which legalism calls for, and at the same time a 
life of faith in Jesus Christ and filial trust in the God of grace. 
This strong conviction of the incompatibility of the two con- 
ceptions, experientially as well as logically, is doubtless grounded 
in the apostle’s own experience. Cf. 2^®. 

The verb in classical writers from Homer down, signifying 

‘Uo fall out of,” with various derived significations, is probably used 
here, as usually when limited by a genitive without a preposition, with 
the meaning, “to fail of,” “to lose one's hold upon” (-rijc; x&gtxoc; being 
a genitive of separation), not, however, here in the sense that the 
divine grace has been taken from them (as in Jos. Antiq. 7. 203 (9O, 
Ixxecciv) , but that they have abandoned it. Cf. 
2 Pet. 3l^• (puXdaoreaOe Xva . . . Ixx^aiQTe toO tSfou <ruiQptYtJ.ou, 
For to af&rm that their seeking justification in law involved as an 
immediate consequence the penal withdrawal of the divine grace (note 
the force of the aorist in relation to the present 5txatoua9e; cf. above 
on involves a wholly improbable harshness of concep- 

tion. On the form ISex^aaxe cf. Win.-Schm. XIII 12. 

5 , 7^p TvveOfJLari iK Triarrecos iKirida hmtocrvvrjs aireK- 

he)( 6 ^Ba. ‘‘For we by the Spirit, by faith, wait for a 
hoped-for righteousness.” is emphatic, we in contrast 

with all who hold to legalism, irveufxari is used without the 
article, hence qualitatively, but undoubtedly with reference to 
the Spirit of G^. Cf. the similar usage in 3® 5^®* and see 



special note on Uvedna and 2 ap^, p. 491. The contrast with 
the flesh which in 5^®' is expressed is probably here latent. 
He who seeks divine acceptance by law is in reality relying 
upon the flesh. See Rom. We^ on the other hand, 

depend not on flesh but on the Spirit. The word hiKaiocrvvT) 
is best understood in its inclusive sense, having reference both 
to ethical character and to forensic standing. It is this which 
is the object of the Christian’s hope and expectation (Phil. 3®* ^0). 
C/. detached note on Atkatos, etc., VI B. 2, p. 471, and the 
discussion there of this passage. Observe also the expression 
hC aydirrjs evepyovjjievr] in v.® as indicating that the apostle is 
here including the ethical aspect of righteousness. The whole 
sentence introduced by ydp is an argument e contrario^ confirm- 
ing the assertion of v.^ by pointing out that we, i. e., we who 
hold the gospel of grace, look for the realisation of our hope of 
righteousness, not in law, ip but on the one side by the 
Spirit of God and on the other through faith. 

IIve^tAaTc is probably a dative of means, limiting d(:x£xBsx6tie0a, or, 
to speak more exactly, the verb of attaining implied in dn:gxBex6[j.e8a, 
the thought being, “By the Spirit we expect to attain,^’ etc. lx 
xfaTreox; also denotes means, the phrase being complementary to 
xvgOjjLaTt, and expressing the subjective condition of attaining IXx. 
Six., as xveOtJuxTt denotes the objective power by which it is achieved. 

'AxexSI%oyiac, used only in N. T. (Paul, Heb. and r Pet.) and in 
considerably later writers (cf, Nilgeli, Wortsckatz^ p, 43; M. and M. 
Voc,, s. V.) signifies “to await with eagerness/’ M apparently inten- 
sifying the force given to the simple verb by lx, “to be receiving from 
a distance,” hence “to be intently awaiting.” 

The interpretation, “by a Spirit which is received by faith,” the 
phrase xve6tJLaT:t lx x^cruewq thus qualitatively designating the Spirit 
of God, is neither grammatically impossible (cf, Rom. 8^, xveO(jia 
Eph. xvsOp/z ao<p(ac; xal dcxoxaX6t{iec»)<;. Rom. 3*®, 

UaGT-^ptov Sid xfcnreax;, none of which are, however, quite parallel 
cases), ,nor un-PauIine in thought (cf. 3^: ?va t^v Ixayyeltev 'coO 
xve6( Xdpwpiev Std x^crceo)?). Yet the nature of the relation 
which this interpretation assumes between xve^puxTt and lx xfcrcetix; 
is such as would probably call for xvefipuxrt lx xfonreox; {cf. 
xfcrcet . . , ch Tou uloO tou 0eoO), while, on the other hand, the suc- 
cession of co-ordinate limitations is not uncharacteristic of the apostle; 
cf. Rom. 3*®. 

V, 5-6 279 

'EXicBa, as is required by dxsxBex6tJL86a, is used by meton57my for 
that which is hoped for. Cf. Col. Tit. 2 « Heb. 6^K The genitive 
Stxatoci6vTQq may be considered as an objective genitive, if the whole 
phrase be supposed to be taken by metonymy — “a hope of righteous- 
ness,” standing for “a hoped-for righteousness,” or a genitive of de- 
scription (apposidonal genitive) if the meton 3 my be thought of as 
affecting the word iXiclZa alone. In either case it is the'righteousness 
which is the object both of hope and expectation. On the combination 
dxsxSe^. cf. Tit. 2^®, 'icpo<jBex6tJt£vot ^cxxoep^av Eur. 

Alcest, 130: vuv gfou ir^v* It’ Polyb. 8. 21% tat? 

xpoaSe^(i>p.4vat? eX-icCgiv (dted by Alf. ad loc.). 

6. yap Xpttrr^ ^It) crov ovt€ 'Kepiroixrj tl ia'xvei oire 
cLKpo^varCa^ cxXKcl ttwitis hi aydirr^s ivepyovpeun], “For in 
Christ Jesus, neither circumcision availeth anything, nor 
uncircumcision, but faith working through love.’’ For the 
disclosure of the apostle’s fimdamental idea of the nature 
of religion, there is no more important sentence in the whole 
epistle, if, indeed, in any of Paul’s epistles. Each term and 
construction of the sentence is significant, ev Xptcrrp ^l7)<rov 
(the bracketing of ^iTjaov by WH., because of its omission by 
B. Clem., seems scarcely justified) limits icrj(vei. It is not 
precisely equivalent to rots ip 'Kpicrr^ "hjcov, but means, 
rather, “on that basis which is created by Christ Jesus”; nearly 
equal, therefore, in modem phrase, to “in Christianity,” “on 
the Christian basis.” With lo';j^v€t (from ^Eschylus down, “to 
have strength,” “to be able,” “to avail”) is to be supplied, not 
hiKaiovp (“is able to justify”; cf. Acts 6^^^), which would be to 
limit the thought more narrowly than the context would war- 
rant, but ds hiKaioaw'qv ^ as suggested by the preceding sen- 
tence, and in the inclusive sense of the term as there used. By 
the omission of the article with TvepiTop'j and all the following 
nominatives, these norms are given a qualitative force, with 
emphasis upon the quality and character of the acts. This 
might be expressed, though also exaggerated, by some such 
expression as, “by their very nature circumcision,” etc. The 
phrase hi dyd'7r7]S ipepyovp^PT] furnishes a most significant 
addition to the word Tr/hrts, which has filled so large a place 
in the epistle thus far. For not only has he not previously in 



this epistle used the word aydirr], but, though often using each 
alone in other epistles (for irtVrts, see Rom. 3““, etc.; and 
for ay dirt}, see esp. i Cor., chap. 13) he has nowhere else in any 
of his letters brought the two words into immediate connec- 
tion. The relation between the two terms, which is here ex- 
pressed but not perfectly defined by h^epyovixiv-q hid, “opera- 
tive, effective through,” “coming to effective expression in,” is 
made clearer by a consideration of the nature of the two re- 
spectively, as Paul has indicated that nature elsewhere. Faith 
is for Paul, in its distinctively Christian e.xpression, a committal 
of one’s self to Christ, issuing iii a vital fellowship with him, by 
which Christ becomes the controlling force in the moral life of 
the believer. See esp. 2“ and c/. detached note on IlMrns and 
IIio-T€uw, V B. 2. (e), p. 482. But the principle of Christ’s life 
is love (see 22®, row dycTijaaPTos, etc.; Rom. 5®-* Faith 

in Christ, therefore, generates love, and through it becomes 
effective in conduct. See also v.^^ where first among the ele- 
ments which life by the Spirit (which, as v.® indicates, is the 
life of faith) produces is love; and on the moral effect and ex- 
pression of love, see especially i Cor., chap. 13. On the mean- 
ing of dydTtj, see on v.“. That the apostle added the words 
hi aydTT]? ivepyovfxdpr] instead of writing ■jrtVris or v 
alone is probably due to his having in mind, even here, that 
phase of the matter which he discusses more fully in vv.‘®®-; 
c/. Rom. 3^-^ and 3’® for similar brief anticipations of matters 
to be more fully discussed later. Anticipating the objection 
that freedom from law leaves the life without moral dynamic, 
he answers in a brief phrase that faith begets love and through 
it becomes operative in conduct. 

The whole sentence affirming the valuelessness aUke of cir- 
cumcision and of uncircumdsion for the Christian life, and 
ascribing value to faith and love, shows how fully Paul had 
ethidsed and spiritualised his conception of religion. That he 
says not simply Tepiropij ovhh> l<rj(v€L, but mpiTopi} 
. . . ovre aKpo^viTTla naturally implies not only that he is 
opposed to the imposition of circumdsion upon the Gentiles, 
but that he repudiates every conception of religion which makes 


V, 6-7 

physical conditions of any kind essential to it. The sentence, 
therefore, in no way contradicts w.^* since the latter declare 
to the Galatians that if they accept a physical rite as religiously 
essential, they thereby repudiate the principle of the religion 
of Christ. He could have said the same thing about uncircum- 
cision had he been addressing men who were in danger of 
adopting this as essential to religion. Indeed, this he does say 
in I Cor. 7^®' TepLTerfxrjfxSos ns €K\i]d 7 }; fxrj ertcrTraaffco. 
The doctrine of that passage as a whole is identical with the 
teaching in this letter. For though in v.^^ rrjprjais evro\&v 
deov, keeping of divine commandments,” fills the place 
occupied here by irlans Si aydirijs evepyoviievT]^ v.^^ here 
shows that these two expressions are at bottom not antithetical 
but in effect equivalent. 

’lax^ci), from iEschylus down, in the sense “to have strength,” “to 
be able,” “to avail” is rare in Paul, but not infrequent in other N. T. 
writers. It is used as here in the third of the above-named senses in 
Heb. 9^^ and with similar meaning in Mt. 5«. Note the construction 

’EvepYoupiivir} is to be taken, in accordance with the regular usage 
of IvepYewOat in Paul, as middle, not passive, and as meaning “oper- 
ative,” “effective”: Rom. 7* 2 Cor. i« 4^* Eph. 3*® Col. i” i Thes. 2“ 
2 Thes. 2^ Jas. 5*®; see also Polyb. i. 13®; Jos. Ant, 15. 145 (53). The 
active, on the other hand, is used of persons: i Cor. i2«- Gal. 2» 3® 
Eph. 2*. That the preposition Side denotes not antecedent cause 
but mediate agency, the object of the preposition being that through 
which the TctoTn; becomes effective, is made practically certain not on 
grammatical grounds, but because of the nature of the two attitudes 
expressed by %l<s'zic; and dcY^JcxTQ as conceived of by the apostle. See 
above in the larger print. See note on Sede under and cf, 2 Cor. i«, 
where a similar relation is expressed by Iv. Since %(axiq is without 
the article, the participle, though anarthrous, may be attributive, 
“which works”; but 2*0 suggests that to express this thought Paul 
would have written wferct*; evepYou^JLivij, and makes it likely that 
Ivepf is adverbial, expressing means or cause. 

7 . /caXSs- rk vpds iveKO\l/€v d\i] 0 eia Treffleadai- 

Ye were running well; who hindered you from obeying truth? ” 
As in 4^®, the apostle breaks off argument to make an appeal to 
the feelings of his readers by reminiscence of the former conduct 



of the Galatians before they fell under the influence of the 
judaisers* It is to this time obviously that the imperfect 
irpe^^re refers, tls vpas^ etc., is not a question for informa- 
tion but of appeal. 

On the use of running as a figure for effort looking to the achievement 
of a result, see 2* Rom. gi® i Cor. Phil. 2*® 2 Thes. 3K It is 

probable that in all cases the apostle has in mind the figure of running 
a race, as expressly in i Cor. evx,6'rT:(o is used by Hippocrates 

in the sense ''to make an incision/’ but with the meaning "to hinder” 
first in Polybius. Here, if the figure is that of a race, the word suggests 
a breaking into the course, getting in the way, or possibly a breaking 
up of the road. That Paul uses the aorist (resultative) rather than 
the present (conative) indicates that he is thinking of what his oppo- 
nents have already accomplished in their obstructive work. The 
present infinitive, TceCOsuOoet, on the other hand, is progressive, so 
that the meaning of the whole expression is, "who has succeeded in 
preventing you from continuing to obey truth?” and the implication 
is that, though they have not fully adopted the views of Paul’s oppo- 
nents, they have ceased to hold firmly to that which Paul taught them. 
xe^Ssadcet is difficult to render exactly into English. "Believe” ex- 
presses rather less, "obey” rather more, than its meaning. It de- 
notes not merely intellectual assent, but acceptance which carries with 
it control of action; cf. Acts Rom. 2®. On the construction 

of xe^0ea0at (inf. with after verbs of hindering), see T 402, 483; 
Bl.-D. 429. The omission of the article with gives to it 

a qualitative force, and shows that, though what the apostle has in 
mind is doubtless the same that in 2® and 21® he calls t dtXifjOeta toO eii- 
ayyeXlWy he desires to emphasise the quality of his message as truth, 
thus conveying the implication that they are turning from something 
that is true to something that is false. Cf. for similar anarthrous use 
of dX-^0€ta Rom. 9* 2 Cor. 6^ Eph. 4*^- Some authorities insert the 
article here (omitted by H*AB). Evidently some scribe, recognising 
that the reference was to the truth of the gospel, stumbled at the qual- 
itativeness of the expression. 

8 , 17 Tr€i0-ixov^ ovK iK rod koXovvtos vfias, ^^This persuasion 
is not from hiTn that calleth you.’^ The restrictive article with 
T€t<r/Aoi'i7 jtnakes it refer definitely to that persxiasion just 
spoken of, viz., the persuasion no longer to hold (his message 
which is) truth. By tou KaXodvros Paul means God. On the 
meaning of the term and its reference to God, see on 1^; and on 

V, 7 “io 


the omission of OeoVj see on 2^ 3®. The negative statement car- 
ries with it the positive intimation that the influence which is 
affecting them is one that is hostile to God, an intimation 
which is definitely expressed in v.®. 

IIstciAovn may be either active (Chrys. on i Thes. i®; Just. Mart. 
Aj^ol. 531) or passive (Ign. Rom, 3* Iren, Haer. 4. 33^), and it is impos- 
sible to tell in which sense Paul thought of it here. The passive sense 
involves the thought of a persuasion actually accomplished, the active 
an effort. It was, of course, the latter, but Iv^xo^ev shows that in 
Paulas thought it was in a sense the former, also. On the tense and 
modal force of Yjctkouvtoq (general present; adjective participle used 
substantively), see BMT 123, 124, 423, and cf, 1 Thes. 21* 52^ 

9 , fMLKpa o\ov TO (ftvpafjLa ^vpiol. little leaven is 
leavening the whole lump/^ The occurrence of exactly the 
same words in i Cor. 5® and the way in which they are there 
used indicate that they were a proverbial saying, referring to 
the tendency of an influence seemingly small to spread until it 
dominates the whole situation. In i Cor. refers to the 
immoral conduct and influence of the incestuous man, and 
ipvpapa represents the Corinthian church, whose whole moral 
life was in danger of being corrupted. Here, over against the 
negative statement of v.®, this verse states the true explanation 
of the situation, viz., that the doctrine of the necessity of cir- 
cumcision, insidiously presented by a few, is permeating and 
threatening to pervert the whole religious life of the Galatian 
churches, fu/xot is probably not to be taken as a general 
present (as in i Cor.) but as a present of action in progress. 
It agrees with all the other evidence of the epistle in indicating 
that the anti-Pauline movement had as yet made but little, 
though alarming, progress. 

On xh 9>6patwt cf, Exod. i2«, and on leaven as a symbol of 
an evil influence (of good, however, in Mt. 13®® Lk, 13*®- see Ltft. 

10 . €7 (it) TT^oida ds vpas iv Kvpitp 5 tl ovdkv dXKo <ppovrj- 
a*€T€' *^I have confidence, in the Lord, respecting you that 
ye will take no other view than this.” With the abruptness 



which characterises the whole passage, the apostle turns sud- 
denly from the discouraging aspects of the situation to an 
expression of hopeful confidence. The use of ey^ emphasises 
the personal, subjective character of the confidence. ‘T, at 
least, whatever others think.” els vixas designates the persons 
in reference to whom (Th, ds B. II 2 a) the confidence is felt; 
ip KvpCcp defines the Lord, i. Christ, not precisely as the 
object of trust but as the one who constitutes the basis or 
ground of confidence (Th. iv, I 6 c.; cf. 2^ and 2^7 and notes on 
these passages). The whole passage is marked by such abrupt- 
ness of expression and sudden changes of thought that the 
words oviep aXXo may mean in general no other view of the 
true nature of religion or the true interpretation of the gos- 
pel than that which Paul had taught them. Most probably 
they refer directly to the opinion just expressed by Paul in v.®. 
In that case the sentence is an expression of confidence that the 
Galatians will share his conviction that the influence exerted by 
the judaisers is, in fact, a leaven (of evil) coming not from God 
but from men, and threatening the religious life of the whole 
community of Galatian Christians. 

The constructions employed by Paul after x^xotOa are various: (a) 
Ixf, with a personal object (2 Cor. i* 2’ 2 Thes. 3O, a,nd with an 
impersonal object (Phil. 3** *), designating the object of confidence, 
that which one trusts; (b) 4 v with a personal object (Phil. 2*< 2 Thes. 3^ 
and the present passage) designating the ground on which confidence 
rests; (c) d<; with the accusative occurring in the present passage, 
without parallel elsewhere; in accordance with the not infrequent use 
of in other connections, the preposition is to be explained, as 
above, as meaning “in respect to.^* To take elg as denoting 
the object of faith (Butt. p. 175) is without the support of other exam- 
ples with this verb, or of the preposition as used with other verbs; 
for while the accusative after iciaTe6(i> denotes the object of 
faith, this construction is practically restricted to use in respect to 
Christ (cf, detached note on ntGrTe6(ii, p. 480), and furnishes no ground 
for thinking that xIxotOoe ek would be used with similar force in 
respect to other persons. 2 Cor. 8**, xeirotOi^aret xoXljJ Tfj elg 6^?, is 
indecisive both because it contains not the verb but the noun, and 
because it shares the ambiguity of the present passage. 

The expression occurs in the Pauline epistles approximately 

V, lo 285 

forty times. That it means “in Christ,” not “in God,” is rendered practi- 
cally certain by these considerations: (a) of ev Xpia-cq), or Ivt^ Xptorqj, 
or Iv Xptatt^ Tiqcjou there are about eighty instances, and in many of 
these the connection of thought is closely similar to those in which 
Iv xup{(p is employed, (b) In seven cases (Rom. 14^^ i Cor. 15*1 
I Thes. 4^ 2 Thes. 3^*) xuptV after Iv is defined by a preceding or 
following Tirjcrou, XpiaT^, or both together, as referring to Christ, and 
in these instances, also, the connection of thought is similar to that in 
which Iv %\jpitp alone occurs, (c) Iv 0 s^ and Iv 0 e^ occur but rarely 
in Paul (Rom. 2^^ 5^- Eph. 3® Col. 33 i Thes. 2* 2 Thes. r 0 » and in 
two of these instances (i Thes. 2 Thes. lO, with 6e^ is joined xupffj) 
in such ways as to show that Iv y.upl(p refers to Christ. Against these 
strong considerations there is only the fact that in general xOptoq 
without the article refers to God, b xOptoc to Christ, But the force 
of this general rule is diminished by the further fact that in set phrases, 
especially prepositional phrases, the article is frequently omitted with- 
out modification of meaning, Cf. detached note on Xlairfip as applied 
to Gody p. 387. On aXXoc cf. Jn. 15“ Acts 4^2. 

0 5 ^ Tapda<r(jov vpas l 3 a<rTd<T€(. to KpCfxa, ocrrts edv §, ^^but 
he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whoever he may 
be.’’ In itself 0 rapdacroov might refer to a particular individual 
identified or unidentified, and the troubling might be present, 
past, or future. But the indefinite relative clause, Sorts idv 
referring to the future (BAfr 303, 304; a present general sup- 
position is excluded by the future ^aardaet^ and a present par- 
ticular by the subjunctive requires us to take 0 rapdaao^p as 
designating not a particular individual mentally identified, but 
as referring to any one who hereafter may disturb them. The 
article is distributive generic, as in 3^2, 14 Doubtless 

this is but another way of referring to those who are spoken 
of in I®, TLves eiaiv ol rapd<r<xovT€s u/xas, Kal ddXovres pie- 
Taarp&J/aL to evayyeXiov tov ')(pi(iTov^ and in v.^* as oi 
dpaaTaTovPTes vjxds. Only their conduct is, for rhetorical 
effect, referred to not as a fact but as a future possibility, as in 
I®, and an indefinite singular takes the place of a definite plural. 
TO Kplfia undoubtedly refers to the judgment of God, which 
carries with it by implication the consequent punishment. 
CJ. Rom. 2®* ® 3®, and esp. Rom, 13^ How or when the punish- 
ment will be experienced the sentence does not indicate; there 



is nothing to show that the apostle has especially or exclusively 
in mind the messianic judgment (Rom. 2^®), 

BaordctciJ, used by classical writers from Homer down, occurs also 
in tbe Lxx, Apocr,, and Pat Ap. It is found in N. T. twenty-seven 
times. In all periods, apparently, it is employed both in a literal 
• sense of bearing a burden (Mk. 14^* Jn. and other similar senses, 
and metaphorically of mental processes. In N. T. it occurs several 
times in the sense ‘‘to endure’’: Jn. 16^* Acts 15*0 Rom. 15*. Cf, also 
Gal. 6^' Of beaijng punishment it occurs here only in N. T., but 
also in 2 Kgs. 

11. ’Ey® Se, ade\<poL^ el TepLTOfxrjp eri K7]pv(T(T0i^ ri etl 
SmKOfxai; '^And I, brethren, if I am still preaching circumcision, 
why am I still being persecuted?’’ Still another abrupt sen- 
tence, probably occasioned by the fact that they who were 
troubling the Galatians were using as one of their weapons a 
charge that the apostle was still, when it suited his purpose, 
preaching circumcision. As evidence of the falsity of the 
charge, Paul appeals to the fact that he is being persecuted, 
implying that it was for anti-legalism. The use of €tl with 
KTjpvcrcro) implies that there was a time when he preached cir- 
cumcision. The reference is doubtless to his pre-Christian 
life, since we have no^ information that he ever advocated cir- 
cumcision after he became a Christian. On the reasons for 
holding that furnishes no evidence of a period of conformity 
to the views of the judaisers in the matter, see notes on that 
passage. What basis there was for the charge that he was 
still advising circumcision, and whether the charges referred 
to the circumcision of Gentiles or of Jews — doubtless there 
was something to give colour to it — may perhaps be inferred 
from I Cor. 7^®, if we may assume that even before writing 
Galatians he had said or written things similar to that passage. 
On Acts 16®, see below. 

The conditional clause e? . . . xiQpficicraj, though having the form 
of a simple present supposition, evidently expresses an unfulfilled con- 
dition (BikTT 245; cf. 2*1 31* Rom. 4* Jn. i8*»), while the apodosis takes 
the form of a rhetorical question, meaning, 'T should not be perse- 
cuted.” On the possible uses of Ire, cf. on Despite the seeming 
parallelism, the two words Irt can hardly both be temporal. To 
make both mean “still as in my pre-Christian days,” is forbidden by 

V, io~ii 287 

the fact that he was not in those days persecuted for preaching cir- 
cumcision. To make both mean “still as in my early Christian days/^ 
is forbidden by the improbability that he was then preaching circum- 
cision and the certainty (implied in the sentence itself) that if he had 
been he would not have been persecuted. If both are temporal, the 
meaning can only be, If I am stiE as in my pre-Christian days, preach- 
ing circumcision, why do they, having learned this, continue that per- 
secution which they began supposing that I was opposed to circum- 
cision? Simpler and more probable than this is the interpretation of 
the first h:i as temporal, and the second as denoting logical opposition; 
^/•j Rom. The sentence then means: “If I am still preaching 
circumcision, why am I despite this fact persecuted?” 

The bearing of this passage on the historicity of the statement of 
Acts 163 with reference to the circumcision of Timothy belongs, rather, 
to the interpretation of Acts than here. If the event occurred as there 
narrated and became the occasion for the charge to which Paul here 
refers, why he made no further reply than to deny the charge, and that 
only by implication, can only be conjectured. Perhaps knowing that 
the Galatians and his critics both knew that he had never objected to 
the circumcision of Jews, and that the only question really at issue 
was the circumcision of Gentiles who accepted the gospel, he judged 
it unnecessary to make any reply other than an appeal to the fact that 
they were persecuting him. 

apa KaT'ijpyijTai ro aKavhaXov rov crravpov, ^^Then is the 
stumbling-block of the cross done away with.’’ /. e,, if circum- 
cision may be maintained, the cross of Christ has ceased to be 
a stumbling-block, to cKdvboXov rov (rravpov is that element 
or accompaniment of the death of Christ on the cross that 
makes it offensive (i Cor. viz., to the Jews, deterring them 
from accepting Jesus as the Christ. This offensiveness, the 
apostle implies, lay in the doctrine of the freedom of believers 
in Christ from the law. Whatever else there may have been 
in the fact of Jesus’ death on the cross to make the doctrine of 
his messiahship offensive to the Jews, that which above all else 
made it such was the doctrine that men may obtain divine 
acceptance and a share in the messianic blessings through faith 
in Jesus, without circumcision or obedience to the statutes of 

• Cf. the words of Chrsrsostom quoted by Alford ad loc,: “ For even the cross wMch was a 
stumbling-block to the Jews was not so much so as the failure to require obedience to the 
ancestral laws. For when they attacked Stephen they said not that he was worshipping the 
Crucified but that he was speaking against the law and the holy place.” 



It is natural and reasonable to suppose that this sentence reflects 
PauFs own pre-Christian attitude, when his own zeal for the law made 
him a persecutor of Christians « Phil 3®). Had it been something 
else than its anti-legalism that chiefly made the Christian movement 
offensive to him, he could not have made this statement, since in that 
case the removal of this element would have left the doctrine of the 
cross offensive to those who still occupied the position which he main- 
tained in his pre-Christian days. And this fact in turn confirms the 
evidence of the Acts that even in its early days the Christian movement 
had an anti-legalistic element. The implication of the sentence is 
that, in his judgment, had Christianity been content to remain Jewish- 
legalistic, it might have won the Jews, or at least have maintained a 
respected standing among Jewish sects. The conflict between the 
Christianity of Paul and that of the ultra-legalists, was radical. The 
former sought to reach the nations at the risk of becoming offensive 
to the Jews; the latter would win the Jews at the sacrifice of all other 
nations. With this view of Paul the testimony of the book of Acts 
is in harmony, both in its indication of the large number of Jews who 
attached themselves to the legalistic Christianity of James and the 
Jerusalem church, and in the bitter offensiveness to them of the anti- 
legalism of Paul. See esp. Acts, chaps. 15 and zi**-**. 

Ltft. understands the sentence as ironical (c/. 4*®), meaning: '"Then 
I have adopted their mode of preaching, and I am silent about the 
cross.” But this ascribes to xaTT^pyigTat an improbable meaning, and 
to the whole sentence a more personal reference than the language 

On the use of &ga with the indicative without < 2 v in an apodosis 
shown by the context to be contrary to fact, cf. 2« i Cor. 151®, where 
the protasis is expressed and the condition is in form that of a simple 
supposition, and i Cor. 15**, where as here the protasis is implied in 
the preceding sentence. 

12. ''0(f)€\ov Kal uTOKotfroprai ol ava<TraTovvT€s vjjLas, 
would that they who are disturbing you would even have them- 
selves mutilated.^^ ol apaararodpres are evidently the same 
who are directly referred to in i® as ol rapdoraopres vpas:, and 
hypothetically in 0 rapda-crm of v.^®. aTOKdxl/oprai is clearly 
shown by usage (see exx. below) and the context to refer not, 
except quite indirectly (see below), to a withdrawal from the 
Christian community, or any other like act, but to bodily 
mutilation. In the bitterness of his feeling, the apostle ex- 
presses the wish that his opponents would not stop with dr- 

V, 11-12 


cumcision, but would go on to emasculation. There is possibly 
a tacit reference to the emasculation of the priests of Cybele, 
with which the Galatians would doubtless be familiar and, 
quite possibly, in the apostle’s mind, at least, though he could 
hardly have expected his Galatian readers to think of it, to the 
language of Deut. -23^ (see below). The whole expression is 
most significant as showing that to Paul circumcision had be- 
come not only a purely physical act without religious signifi- 
cance, but a positive mutilation, like that which carried with it 
exclusion from the congregation of the Lord. It is not im- 
probable that he has this consequence in mind: wish that 

they who advocate this physical act would follow it out to the 
logical conclusion and by a further act of mutilation exclude 
themselves from the congregation of the Lord.” Cf. Phil. 3^, 
where he applies to circumcision as a physical act the deroga- 
tory term xararoju^}, ^‘mutilation.” To get the full significance 
of such language in the mouth of a Jew, or as heard by Jewish 
Christians, we must imagine a modern Christian speaking of 
baptism and the Lord’s Supper as if they were merely physical 
acts without spiritual significance; yet even this would lack the 
element of deep disgust which the language of Paul suggests. 

On dcvaaTaT6w, meaning /‘to disturb,” see M. and M. Voc, s. v, 
S^sXov, a shortened aorist indicative for &<peXov, “I ought,” has 
in N. T. the force of an interjection, “would that.” Used by classical 
writers generally with the infinitive, it occurs in Callimachus (260 b. c.) 
with a past tense of the indicative; so also in the Lxx (Ex. 16^ Num. 
i4», etc.) and elsewhere in N. T. (i Cor. 4* 2 Cor. Rev. 3“) of a 
wish probably conceived of as unattainable. It occurs with the future 
here only, probably with the intent of presenting the wish rhetorically 
as attainable, though it can hardly have been actually thought of as 
such. BMT 27. Rem. i*. 

'Axox6xTea6ae with an accusative of specification, 
expressed, or unexpressed but to be supplied mentally, refers to a 
form of emasculation said to be still common in the East. See Deut. 
23* oOk elffeXe^aovrat 0XaB{a? deicox.exoiJitJL 4 vo<; eE<; IxxXiQarfav 
Kupfou. Epict. Di$s. 2. 20*®: ol dc’icoxexo{A(xlvoi •z&g fe icpoOupifag Tck<; 
Tfiiv dcvBp^iv dicoxBtJiaaOat oO B6vavtat. Philo, Sacrif, 325 (13); Leg, alleg, 
III 8 (3); Dion. Cass. 79“. Cf. Reil and Delitzsch on Deut 23*: 

[Lxx 6X«B{«<;] literally ‘wounded by aushing,' denotes one 



wlio is mutilated in this way; Vulg. eunuchus attritis vel amputatis 
testiculis. nn? [Lxx dxoxexop.pi,lvoc] is one whose sexual mem- 

ber was cut off; Vulg. abscisso veretro. According to Mishnah Jebam. 
VI 2, 'contusus est omnis, cuius testiculi vulnerati sunt, vel 
certe unus eorum; exsectus (nns), cujus membrum virile praecisum 
est/ In the modern East emasculation is generally performed in 
this way. (See Tournefort, Reise^ ii, p. 259 [The Levant^ 1718, ii. 7] 
and Burckhardt, Nubien^ pp. 450, 451.)” 

(S) Exhortation not to convert their liberty in Christ 
into an occasion for yielding to the impulse of the 
flesh (5^®"^®). 

In this paragraph the apostle deals with a new phase of the 
subject, connected, indeed, with the main theme of the letter, 
but not previously touched upon. Aware that on the one side 
it will probably be urged against his doctrine of freedom from 
law that it removes the restraints that keep men from im- 
morality, and certainly on the other that those who accept it 
are in danger of misinterpreting it as if this were the case, he 
fervently exhorts the Galatians not to fall into this error, but, 
instead^ through love to serve one another. This exhortation 
he enforces by the assurance that thus they will fulfil the full 
requirement of the law, that they will not fulfil the desire of 
the flesh, nor be under law, and by impressive lists, on the one 
hand of the works of the flesh, and on the other of the products 
of the Spirit in the soul. 

^^For ye wer,e called for freedom^ brethren. Only convert not 
your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh, but through love he 
servants one of another, ^^For the whole law is fulfilled in one 
word, even in this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself, ^^But 
if ye are biting and devouring one another, take heed lest ye be con- 
sumed by one another, ^^But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye 
will not fulfil the desire of the flesh. ^"^For the desire of the flesh is 
against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against that 
of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that whatsoever 
ye will ye may not do. ^Wut if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not 
under law. ^^Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are 
fornication, uncleanness, wantonness; ^^idolatry, witchcraft; enmi- 

V, 12-13 


ties^ strife^ jealousy, angers, self -seekings, parties, divisions, ^'^envy- 
ings; drunkenness, carousings, and the things like these; respect- 
ing which I tell you beforehand, as I have {already) told you in ad- 
vance^ that they who do such things will not inherit the kingdom oj 
God, ^^But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, 
kindness, goodness, faithfidness, ^gentleness, self -control. Against 
such things there is no law. ^^And they that belong to the Christ, 
Jesus, have crucified the flesh with its disposition and its desires, 
^^If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit also let us walk, ^Let us 
not become vairir-minded, provoking one another, envying one 

13 . *T}j>hs yap eir iKeodepia iK\'qdr)Tey abe\(f)OL* ‘‘Fox ye 
were called for freedom, brethren.’’ Like v.^ this sentence is 
transitional. It belongs with what precedes in that it gives a 
reason (yap is causal) for but even more significantly in that 
it is an epitome of the whole preceding argument of the epistle 
in behalf of the freedom of the Gentile. But it belongs with 
what follows in that it serves to introduce a wholly new aspect 
of the matter, the exposition of which begins with povov. 
vpets, immediately following vpas of v.^^^ is emphatic. “Ye, 
whom they are disturbing, for freedom were called.” 

On expressing destination, see Th. B. 2 a i Thes. 4 ^ Phil. 4 ^^ 
iXeu 0 ep{(jc manifestly refers to the same freedom that is spoken of in 
v.\ but being without the article is qualitative. On IxXTQSiQTe, cf, on 
TOO xaXoOvtoi; v.* and more fully on i«. On dcBeXtpof, see on 

povov prj rrfV ikevdepiav els a(popprjv crapd^ “Only con- 
vert not your freedom into an opportunity for the flesh.” 
povov ^ used also in 2^® Phil, to call attention not to an 
exception to a preceding statement, but to an important addi- 
tion to it, here introduces a most significant element of the 
apostle’s teaching concerning freedom, which has not been pre- 
viously mentioned, and which occupies his thought throughout 
the remainder of this chapter. On this word, as on a hinge, the 
thought of the epistle turns from freedom to a sharply con- 
trasted aspect of the matter, the danger of abusing freedom. 
So far he has strenuously defended the view that the Gentile is 



not under obligation to keep the statutes of the law, and though 
he has not referred specifically to any statute except those that 
pertain to circumcision, food, and the observance of days 
and seasons, he has constantly spoken simply of law, or the 
law, without indicating that his thought was limited to any 
portion or aspect of it. To men who have been accustomed to 
think of law as the only obstacle to free self-indulgence, or to 
those who, on the other hand, have not been accustomed to 
high ethical standards, such language is (despite the contrary 
teaching of w.®* easily taken to mean that for the Christian 
there is nothing to stand in the way of the unrestrained indul- 
gence of his own impulses. Of this danger Paul is well aware 
(c/. Rom. 6^®' Phil. 31^®* Col. 3^® ), and beginning with this v. 
addresses himself vigorously to meeting and averting it. The 
word previously in this epistle a purely physical term, is 
used here and throughout this chapter (see w. 24) 3^ 

definitely ethical sense, ^^that element of man’s nature which 
is opposed to goodness, and makes for evil,” in which it appears 
also in Rom., chap. 8; see detached note on jua and 2 ap^ 
II 7, p. 493, and the discussion following 7. For fuller treat- 
ment, see Burton, Spirit^ Soul, and Flesh, chap. VI, pp. 186, 
191 ff. Of any physical association with this ethical sense of the 
term there is no trace in this passage. 

The article before IXeuSepfav is demonstrative, referring to IXeoQep^a 
of the preceding clause, and through it to that of 51 and the implication 
of the whole context. On the omission of the verb with cf, 

Aristoph. Vesp, 1179; Itc, Soph. Antig. 575; 

[nil p.oc p.up{ou<;, Bern. 45^* (cited by Alf.); Hartung, ParUkeln 11 153; 
Bevarius, De FarUctdis, Ed. Kioto, II 669; W. LXIV 6 ; Mk. 14*. Note 
also the omission of the verb after p.6vov, in 2*0. What verb is to be 
supplied, whether Sxexe, xotelTe, tp^ts (cf, Sief, EIL et al.), 
ffTpi^exe or p.£TaaTp 4 <peTe (Rev. ii< Acts 2^®* *°), or some other, is not 
wholly clear. The thought is probably not “use not this freedom for, 
in the interest of,” but “convert not this freedom into.” On the use 
of ek, cf, Jn. 16®®: Xuid^ ef<; Acts 2*®* »®. 

ipoppt.'^, properly the place from which an attack is made (Thucydides, 
Polybius), is used also figuratively by Xenophon, et d,, with the mean- 
ing, “incentive,” “opportxmity,” “occasion.” In N. T. it occurs in 
the Pauline letters only (Rom. 7* 2 Cor. 5^* ii*® i Tim. always in 


V, i3~i4 

tMs latter meaning, and in the same phrases as in Isocrates and Demos- 
thenes: (5:90pti.^v Xa§elv, Isoc. 53 A; Rom. 7«- d^oppLfjv $t56vat, 
Dem. 546^®; 2 Cor. 5^2 Sj^ It is best taken here in the 

sense of “opportunity.*’ Tfj arapxf is a dative of advantage limiting 
dyopiJL'ftv. The article is probably generic, as clearly in v.^^, and the 
term is at least semi-personified. 

aWa Sea Trjs aydiTTjs SovXevere aX\i]KoL9^ ^^but through love 
be servants one of another.’’ This is the apostle’s antidote 
alike to the harmful restrictions of legalism and the dangers of 
freedom from law: love, expressed in mutual service. On what 
he means by aydirr), see on v.® and detached note on 
p. 519. The phase of love here emphasised is clearly that of 
benevolence, desire for the well-being of others, leading to efforts 
on their behalf. Soi^XetJco, generally meaning ‘‘to yield obedi- 
ence to,” “to be in subjection to” (see 4®* ®), is evidently here 
employed in a sense corresponding to that which SovXos some- 
times has {cf, on i^®), and meaning “to render service to,” “to 
do that which is for the advantage of.” Having urgently dis- 
suaded the Galatians who were formerly enslaved to gods that 
are not really gods from becoming enslaved to law (4® 5O, he 
now, perhaps with intentional paradox, bids them serve one 
another, yet clearly not in the sense of subjection to the will, but 
of voluntary devotion to the welfare, of one another. Cf, Rom. 
j 214-21 j ii 25-33 See also Mk. 9®® 10^®, where, however, 
hiaKovoSj not SoOXos, is used. The present tense of SouXetJere 
reflects the fact that what Paul enjoins is not a single act of 
service, nor an entrance into service, but a continuous attitude 
and activity. 

'AXXdt as often [cf. Rom. 21*, etc.) introduces the positive correla- 
tive of a preceding negative statement or command (German, sondem). 
The article before iyikTcqq is demonstrative, either referring to v.«, or, 
perhaps, in view of the distance of this v., to that love which is char- 
acteristic of the Christian life. Cf, i Cor. t 3» 141 Rom. i2». as in 
xdptTo?, iis, marks its object as the conditioning cause, that the 
possession of which makes possible the action of the verb, rather than 
as instrument in the strict sense. Cf. note on Bui in 

14 . 0 ydp was vd/ios ivl X07CP TCTrXijpcurat, ip 
“ *AyaT'^<r€LS top TXrjcr^op aov &s aeaurdp” “For the whole 



law is fulfilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt love thy 
neighbour as thyself.’’ A striking paradox. Having devoted 
practically all his effort up to this point, directly or indirectly, to 
dissuading the Galatians from coming into bondage to the law 
by undertaking to obey its statutes, he now gives as the reason 
for their serving one another that thus they will fulfil the whole 
law. But the paradox is itself most instructive; for it shows 
that there was a sense of the word “law” according to which it 
was essential that its requirements be fully met by the Chris- 
tian. Cf. Rom. 8^. The explanation of the paradox lies partly 
in the diverse senses of the word “law,” and the fact that the 
apostle employs it here not, as heretofore in the epistle, of its 
legalistic element, or of law legalistically interpreted, but of 
divine law conceived of as consisting in an ethical principle (see 
detached note on No'mos, V 2. (d), p. 458); partly, but to a less 
extent, in the difference between keeping statutes in slavish 
obedience and fulfilling law as the result of life by the Spirit. 

6 , 16^ apostle’s statements become intelligible and 
consistent only when it is recognised that he held that from the 
whole law as statutes, from the obligation to obey any of its 
statutes as such, men are released through the new revelation 
in Christ; and that, on the other hand, all that the law as an 
expression of the will of God really requires, when seen with 
eyes made discerning by experience, is love, and he who loves 
therefore fulfils the whole law. Statutes he will incidentally 
obey in so far as love itself requires it, but only so far, and in 
no case as statutes of the law. Cf. the apostle’s bold application 
of this principle even to chastity in i Cor. 6 ^*, showing that in 
Paul’s view even when things prohibited by the law were also 
excluded by love, it was on the latter ground, not the former, 
that they were to be avoided by the Christian. 

The precise meaning of this sentence turns in no small part on the 
meaning of weicXi^pcaTat, on which diverse interpretations have been 
put. It has be«i interpreted above as meaning fully obeyed.” 
This interpretation demands substantiation. tcXiqp6co, a classical word, 
from iEschylus and Herodotus down, means properly ''to fill,” "to 
make full”; its object is, therefore, a space empty or but partly filled. 

V, 14 29S 

In this sense it occurs rarely in N. T.: Mt. 1343 Lk. 3® Jn. 128. Em- 
ployed tropically it signifies: i. “to fill/^ “to fulfil,” the object being 
thought of under the figure of a receptable or empty vessel. It is used 
(a) with a personal object and means, “ to fill,” “ to supply abundantly” : 
Acts 13^2 Rom. (b) with an impersonal object, originally at least 
pictured to the mind as a receptacle to be filled, an empty form to be 
filled with reality; thus of a promise, prophecy, or statement of fact, 
“to satisfy the purport of,” “to fit the terms of”: Mt. 1^2 et freq, in 
Mt. Acts 318, etc.; of commands and laws, “to satisfy the require- 
ments of,” “to obey fully”: Rom. 8^ 138^ probably also Mt, 51’'; of 
needs, “to satisfy”: Phil. 4}^. When the object is a task or course of 
action it means “to complete,” “fully to perform”: Mt. 3^ Lk. 71 
Acts 1225 1425 Col. 417. 2. When the object is thought of as something 

incomplete, and requiring to be filled out to its normal or intended 
measure, its meaning is “to complete,” “to make perfect”: Mk. 

Jn. 78 1511 16*4. In Rom. 8^ 138 Paul uses the word as here with v6tJLO(;, 
and qmte unambiguously in the sense, “fully to obey”; this fact 
creates a strong presumption in favour of that meaning here. The 
use of the perfect tense, also, which might seem to favour the meaning 
“to make perfect” (the sentence in that case meaning, “the whole 
law stands complete, made perfect, in the one word,” etc.) is sufii- 
ciently explained by xexXi^pwxsv in Rom. 13*: 6 dYaxCiv Thv &rspov 
v6ixov xexXi^poxjsv, “he that loveth his neighbour stands in the position 
of having fulfilled law, is a fulfiUer of law,” the tense in both sentences 
being a gnomic perfect (BMT 79), The present sentence then means, 
“The whole law stands fully obeyed in (obedience to) one word,” etc. 
So Luther’s translation (though freely expressed) : “ AUe Gesetze werden 
in einem Worte erfiillet”; Stage’s German version: “Das ganze Gesetz 
findet seine Erfiillung in dem einen Worte”; so also Ell. Ltft. Sief., et d. 
The meaning (2) “is completed,” though entirely possible in connection 
with such a word as v6p^o<;, is practically excluded here (a) by xctc; in 
h xd? v6iJ.o<;, indicating that the apostle is speaking, not of the law as 
incomplete, but as already complete, and (b) by the evidence of Rom. 8^ 
I3« in favour of “fulfil.” The meaning “is summed up” (so Weizs., 
“geht in ein Wort zusammen,” and Stapfer, “se resume d’un seul 
mot”) is also appropriate to the context and harmonious with xd?, and 
repeats the thought of Paul in Rom. 13*. But it is opposed by the evi- 
dence of Rom. 138* », where Paul using both xXtjpdo) and dcvax€9aXat6(a 
clearly distinguishes them in meaning, using the latter in the sense 
“to sum up” and the former to mean “fulfil,” “obey fully,” and by 
the fact that xXif)p6(i> is never used in the sense which this interpretation 
requires either in N. T., the Lxx, or in any Greek writer so far as 
observed. Sief. dtes thirteen of the older commentators and trans- 
lators who take xexXi^pcdTat in the sense of dvaxeipaXatouTat. An 



examination of nine of the ablest of these authorities shows no lexi- 
cographical basis for the position taken. The strongest, though en- 
tirely untenable, reason given is a comparison of xeicX^pcatat here with 
dtva%e(paXatouTat in Rom. 13*, whereas the proper comparison is with 
xexXiQpoixev in Rom. 13*. 

The position of xac between the article and the noun v6[jlo<; is un- 
usual; if a distinction is to be drawn between the more usual xa<; b 
vdtJLog and the form here employed, the latter expresses more clearly 
the idea of totality, without reference to parts. See Butt., p. 120; 
Bl.-D. 275. 7; Acts 197 20^* 27*^; I Tim. The context makes it clear 
that the reference is to the law of God; but clearly also to the law of 
God as revealed in 0 . T., since it is this that has been the subject 
of discussion throughout the epistle. See detached note on 
V 2. (d), p. 459- 

A6yo<;, meaning ‘'utterance,” “saying,” “reason,” etc., always has 
reference not to the outward form or sound, but to the inward content; 
here it evidently refers to the sentence following. Cf. Mt. 26^^ Lk. 71’', 

The sentence dcYaxi^aetq . , . aeaurdv is quoted from Lev. following 
the Lxx. dcYax^cTstt; clearly refers specially to the love of benevolence 
(see detached note on 'Ayawcia) and ^Ay&’Kri). In the original passage, 
);i, though in itself capable of being used colourlessly 
to denote another person without indication of the precise relationship, 
doubtless derives from the context (“Thou shalt not take vengeance, 
nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt 
love thy neighbour as thyself”) a specific reference to fellow Israelites. 
This limitation of the command, as, of course, also those passages 
which enjoin or express a hostile attitude to non-Israelites or to per- 
sonal enemies (Deut, 23*-« 25^^-” Ps.‘ 411“ 6922-M io9«-w), the apostle* 
disregards, as he does the specific statutes of the law, such, e, g., as 
those requiring circumcision and the observance of days, which he 
conceived to be no longer valuable and valid. His affirmation is to be 
taken not as a verdict of mere exegesis, summing up with mathematical 
exactness the whole teaching of 0 . T., and giving its precise weight 
to each phase of it, but as a judgment of insight and broad valuation, 
which, discriminating what is central, pervasive, controlling, from what 
is exceptional, affirms the former, not introducing the latter even as a 
qualification but simply ignoring it. It is improbable that he drew a 
sharp distinction between portions of the law, and regarded those which 
were contrary to the spirit of love or not demanded by it as alien 
elements intruded into what was otherwise good; at least he never in- 
timates such a discriinination between good and bad parts of the 
law. Rather, it would scan, he looked at the law as a whole, as one 
might view a building many parts of which taken alone are without 

V, i4“i6 2g*j 

form or comeliness, yet which as a whole is wholly beautiful. Its 
total meaning was to him love; and this was the law of God; the 
parts as such had for him no authority. 

15 . d he a\Kri\ovs haKvere Kal Karecdiere^ ffKh-ere [xi) vr^ 
aWij'Kcop avdKo:d 7 ]T€, '‘But if ye are biting and devouring one 
another, take heed lest ye be consumed by one another.” The 
form of the conditional clause and the tense of the verbs imply 
that the apostle has in mind a condition which he knows to be, 
or thinks may be, even now existing. It would but slightly 
exaggerate this suggestion to translate, “If ye continue your 
biting and devouring of one another.” What the condition 
was to which he referred neither the passage nor the context 
discloses; most probably it was strife over the matters on 
which the judaisers were disturbing them. 

The verbs Sdtxvto, xaTea6C(i), (all of common use in classical 

writers, the first two from Homer down, the third from Pindar down) 
suggest wild animals engaged in deadly struggle. The order is cli- 
mactic, the first and second by virtue of their respective meanings, 
the third in relation to the other two by virtue of their tenses, SdbcvsTg 
and xai:6a6feTe being conative presents and dvaX(i)6i]T6 a resultative 

16 . Aeyo) 5 e, TrpevfxaTi wepLTraretre /cal eTnOviiiav aapKos 
OX) prf T€\e(T 7 }T€, “But I say, Walk by the Spirit and ye will 
not fulfil the desire of the flesh.” The use of the phrase 

not strictly necessary to the expression of the thought, 
throws emphasis upon the statement thus introduced. Cf. 
3^^ 4^ Rom. 10^®' 15® i Cor. lo^^ 2 Cor. By 

TTvevpLari Paul undoubtedly refers to the Spirit of God as in 
V.®. So also crdp^ manifestly has the same ethical meaning as 
in v.^ 3 . (See detached note on Hv^vpay HI B. i. (c), p. 491, and 
2dp^ 7, p. 493.) TrepLTrare'tre is a true imperative in force, 
while also serving as a protasis to the apodosis ov py reX^crTjre. 
BMT 269. The tense of the imperative denoting action in 
progress is appropriately used of that which the Galatians were 
already doing; cf. 3® 5®. Over against the danger spoken of in 
v.^® and the possible suggestion of the judaisers to the Gala- 



tians, or the fear of the Galatians themselves, that without the 
pressure of the law constraining them to do right they would 
fall into sinful living, Paul enjoins them to continue to govern 
their conduct by the inward impulse of the Spirit, and emphati- 
cally assures them that so doing they will not yield to the 
power within them that makes for evil. The type of life which 
he thus commends to them is evidently the same which in 
vv.s* ® he has described in the words, “For we by the Spirit, by 
faith, wait for the hope of righteousness. For in Christ Jesus 
neither circumcision availeth anything nor uncircumcision, but 
faith working through love’’; in 2^® in the words, “It is no 
longer I that live but Christ that liveth in me, and the life that 
I now live in the flesh, I live by faith, faith upon the Son of 
God”; and which is described below in v.^®in the words, “If 
ye are led by the Spirit,” and in “If we live by the Spirit.” 
On the identity experientially of life by the Spirit, and the life 
of Christ within, see p. 222. 

The word xeptocaT^d), which Paul uses in this epistle here only, is of 
frequent occurrence in his other writings. Occurring in the synoptic 
gospels exclusively, and in the Gospel of John, Revelation, and Acts 
almost exclusively, in the literal sense, it appears in Paul and the 
^istles of John exclusively in the figurative sense, with the meaning 
“to live,^’ “to conduct one's self.” See, e. g., Rom. 6^8^ 2 Cor. loK 
This idea is very frequently expressed in Hebrew by and is 
occasionally reproduced in the Lxx by xeptxaT^ci) (2 Kgs. 20® Prov. 

Ecd. ii»), but far more commonly by xope6ci) (Ps. 26*' ” etfreq.). 
As compared with the parallel expressions in v.i* (SSyeade) and in v.“» 
Kfiiptev), TepcxaTstve emphasises the outward life, conduct, as against 
surrender of will to the divine guidance (v.“), and participation in moral 
life through mystical union (v.“). 

The absence of the article with xye^piavt and with both lxt0upi.fav 
and (japx6g emphasises the contrast in character between the Spirit- 
controlled type of life and that which is governed by impulse of the 
flesh. C/. 3», though the meaning of the word is different there. 
On the different senses in which the words luveSpLoc and adcp^ are set in 
antithesis to one another, see detached note on HveOpuz and Sdfep5, p. 494. 

Te>iw, a word common in Greek writers, from Homer down, signi- 
fies, as its relation to t^Xo^ suggests, “to bring to an end,” “to com- 
plete,” “to perfect”; hence of a task, promise, and the like, “to fulfil.” 
In N. T. it means: i, “to fixiish”; 2. “to perform,” “execute,” 


V, i6 

“fulfil’; 3. *‘to pay.’* It is manifestly used here in the second sense, 
I'rcteupifa <sap%iq being conceived of as a demand, which, the apostle 
affirms, they will not fulfil. o5 [tAi leXiarfce is equivalent to an em- 
phatic promissory future (BMT 172) expressing, not a command, but 
a strong assurance that if they walk by the Spirit they will not, in fact, 
fulfil the flesh-lust, but will be able to resist and conquer it. For 
though 06 with a subj. is occasionally used to express prohibition 
in classical writers, Lxx, and N. T. (GMT 297, BMT 167), yet both 
the general situation, which requires that the Galatians shall not so 
much be commanded as assured of the safety of the course enjoined 
in xepixairstTe, and the immediate context (vv. i») favour an asser- 
tive and predictive sense rather than the rarely occurring imperative 

'ExiOujifa .and IxiOupLlo), both occurring in classical writers from 
Herodotus down, properly express desire of any kind (sxl — 0 uijl 6<;, 
“heart for,” “impulse towards”). In classical writers IxiOutila means 
“desire,” “yearning,” “longing”: Hdt, i”; Thuc. 6. 13b* with object, 
gen. : Thuc. 2. 52 Antipho, 11529. See also Aristot. Rhet.* (1369 a®) : 
c5aTe X(^vTra Saa xp^tmtouciv xpiic'C'cstv ahlaq exxtic, St(3j tOxtqv, 

Std: <p6atv, 8t(3: ^fav, St* ISog, Stdfe Xoyi<7Pl6v, 8t(3c 0upl6v, St* lxt0uptfav 
. . . (1369 b), St* ext0u[xfccv S^ Tcg&z'UB'vai Saa cpaiysrai ’^S4a. The de- 
sires that are' related to the senses (in this general sense, sensual) 
Plato calls al xaxd: tS crfip/z lxt0up.Cat (Phaed. 82 C). C/. Diog. Laert. 
VII (no). In the Lxx and Apocr. IxtOopute occurs frequently, 
being used of desire shown by the context to be good (Ps. 37^®), or evil 
(Prov. 12^^), or without implication of moral quality (Deut. 121®* 

When it is employed of evil desire this is either indicated by some term 
of moral quality, as in Prov. i2*b or as in Sir. 5* 18*°' by such a lim- 
itation as aou or xapSlag aou, the evil lying in the element of selfish- 
ness or wilfulness; when sexual desire is referred to, this idea is not at 
all in the word but in the limitations of it (Sir. 209. In 4 Mac. 
IxtOup-fat is a general term for the desires, which the author says can 
not be eradicated, but to which reason ought not to be subjected; in 2^ 
it is used of sexual desire defined as such by the limiting words; only 
in I* does it stand alone, apparently meaning evil desire, perhaps sex- 
ual, being classed with Ya<rcpcpi.apYfa, gluttony, as one of the feelings 
(x£ 5:0 tq; cf. on xiOijpLa, v.*^) that are opposed to sobriety (aw^poa^viQ). 
IxtOopL^o) in classical writers is likewise a term without moral implica- 
tion, signifying “to desire.” In the Lxx and Apocr., also, it is a 
neutral term, being used of desire for that which is good (Ps. 119*®' 
Isa. 58* Wisd. 6^0) of desire which it is wrong to cherish (Ex. 20*’’ Prov. 
2i»«)r and without moral implication (Gen. 31^“ 2 Sam. 23^®). The 
same is true of the verb in N. T.; it is used of good (Mt. 13'^ i Tim. 3O 
or evil desire (Rom. 7^ 13®) according to the requirements of the con- 



text. It is dearly without moral colour in the present passage. The 
noun also, as used in N. T., carries in itself no moral implication 
(Lk. 22^^ I Thes. 2^^ Phil. i®»). When it is used of evil desire this quality 
is usually indicated by a limitation of the word, or by such limitation 
combined with the larger context Qn. 8^^ Rom. Col. 3S etc.). And 
though there appears in N. T. a tendency (of which there are perhaps 
the beginnings in Sir. and 4 Mac. also) to use extOu^jita for evil desire 
without qualifying word (see Rom. 77- « Jas. ii^), it remains for the most 
part a word of neutral significance without distinctly moral colour. The 
idea of sensuality conveyed by the word ‘‘lust*' as used in modem 
English belongs neither to the verb nor to the noun 

in themselves, and is, indeed, rather rarely associated with them even 
by the context. In the case of the noun the implication of evil (not 
necessarily sensuality) is beginning in N. T. times to attach itself to 
its use. 

17. rj ycip (T^p^ eVtflu/tet KarA rod rrvevpLaros^ ro 5^ irpevpa 
Kardb rfjS crapKos, ravra yap aWijXoLS avrUeiraL^ tva plt) & 
iap d6\7}re ravra Ttoii^re, ^^For the desire of the flesh is 
against that of the Spirit, and the desire of the Spirit against 
that of the flesh; for these are opposed to one another, that 
whatsoever ye will ye may not do.’’ ydp is confirmatory and 
the whole sentence a proof of the statement of v.^®, that walking 
by the Spirit will not issue in subjection to the flesh, crdp^ 
and capKos evidently have the same meaning as crapKds in v.^®, 
but for the qualitative use of that verse the apostle substitutes 
a generic use of cfdp^ with the article, by which the force for 
evil is objectified. So also rrvevpLa and Tvevparos retain the 
meaning of 'Kv^vpari in v.^®, save that by the use of the article 
they become definite, pointing directly to the Spirit of God, 
rather than referring to it qualitatively as in v.^®. ravra ydp 
, . . dvrUurai is probably not simply a repetition in general 
terms of ^ ydp . . . rf^s (rap/cds, in which case it adds nothing 
to the thought. More probably the first part of the v. having, 
consistently with the point of view of v.^®, spoken of Spirit and 
fllesh as mutually antagonistic forces, there is at ravra ydp a 
change in point of view, these and the following words referring 
to the conflict which takes place between these two in the soul 
of which neither is in full possession, as proof of their mutual 
antagonism. To the thought of the whole v. there is an approx- 

V, i 6 -i 7 301 

imate parallel in the antithesis between Satan and the Spirit 
in Mk. The use of eTidvixet with adp^ and its antithesis 

to iTvevfxa in a personal sense involves a rhetorical personifica- 
tion of ^T’ap^, but not a conception of it as actually personal. 

On the question precisely what TauTa . . . dvrixetTat means, and 
whether Tva . . . icotiiTe depends on this or the preceding clause, in 
which is also involved the question whether y&p after xauTa is explan- 
atory or confirmatory, and whether the clause introduced by it is paren- 
thetical, the following data are to be considered: 

1. There is no sufficient warrant in the usage of the period for taking 
?va in a purely ecbatic sense, and Yva . . . xoifjve as a clause of 
actual result. Nor can this clause be regarded as a clause of con- 
ceived result (BMT 218), since the principal clause refers not to a 
conceived situation (denied to be actual, as in i Thes. 5^ or asked 
about as in Jn. 92^ qj* affirmed as necessary as in Heb. lo**), but to one 
directly and positively affirmed. Nor are any of the other sub-telic 
usages of Vva clauses possible here; apparently it must be taken as 
purely telic. This fact forbids taking 5 Icfev QiXr^xe as referring to the 
things which one naturally, by the flesh, desires, and understanding 
the clause as an expression of the beneficent result of walking by the 
Spirit. C/. also Rom. 7*®, where similar language is used of a state 
regarded as wholly undesirable. 

2. This clause also excludes understanding the whole verse as refer- 
ring to a conflict between the flesh and the Spirit as forces in them- 
selves, without reference to any experience of the reader. 

3. On the other hand, to interpret the first clause, y*? • • • <yczp>t6(; 
in an experiential sense makes TaOra . . . dcynixeixai a meaningless 
and obstructive repetition of the preceding statement. 

It seems best, therefore, to understand the sentence from ydp to 
aapx6? as referring to the essential contrariety of the two forces as 
such. This contrariety the apostle adduces as proof (t^p) of the 
statement of v.^s (they will not come under the power of the flesh by 
coming under the Spirit, for the two forces are of precisely opposite 
tendency), and in turn substantiates it by appeal to their own experi- 
ence, the reference to their experience being intimated by the use of 
the second person in the telic clause. The change in point of view 
froni essential contrariety to that of experience is, then, at y&pf 
y&g being not explanatory but confirmatory. 

What condition that is in which the internal conflict described in 
v.i’^ ensues is suggested (a) by 6xb v6p.ov of v.^* (see notes below), 
itself apparently suggested by the thought of v.i^bj (b) by reference 
to Rom. 6«, where, after urging his readers not to continue in sin, the 
' apostle abruptly introduces the expression Oxb vdpLov in such a way as 



to show that, though he has not previously in this chapter spoken of 
the law, he has all the time had in mind that it is under law that 
one is unable to get the victory over sin; (c) by comparison of Rom. 
713--82, in which the apostle sets forth the conflict which ensues when 
one strives after righteousness under law, and from which escape is 
possible only through the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Je